Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Means-testing

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on changes to the proportion of benefits subject to means-testing since 1997. [154858]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The proportion of spending on income-related benefits amounted to 17 per cent. in 1979. By 1996–97, it had more than doubled to 35 per cent. of benefit expenditure. This year, we expect it to be 29 per cent.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Nevertheless, will he concede that more than 50 per cent. of pensioner households depend on

means-tested state benefits for three quarters of their income? Does he accept that the position is getting substantially worse? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Darling: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have expected a different answer. The proportion of means-tested benefits is lower than it was when we took office four years ago. He asked about the pension credit. I make no apology for the fact that the credit means that, for the first time, pensioners who have saved a little money or have a modest occupational or works pension will be rewarded by the state instead of punished under the current system. I cannot understand why Conservative Members want to maintain that system, which is a disincentive to saving. We should encourage people to save for their retirement. The pension credit will ensure that those who do so are rewarded.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Have not this Government done more than any previous Government to ensure that the poorest people who are in need of most help receive it? They have done more than any previous Government to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits receive them. Is not that a good record of achievement for the Labour Government?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. When Conservative Members say that they are against means-testing, they mean that they oppose giving more money to the people who need it most. From next week, about 2 million of the poorest pensioners will be at least £15 a week—nearly £800 a year—better off in real terms than in 1997. We should be proud of that record. We are on the way to eradicating pensioner poverty. We are rewarding saving and helping all pensioners through the benefits and tax systems.

Mr. Tim Boswell: That is all window dressing. This week, the Government's brand new means test for incapacity benefit against occupational pensions income begins. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it


will hit up to 100,000 vulnerable people? Does not he also believe that it will send a deplorable signal to those who contemplate prudently making provision for their future?

Mr. Darling: No, I do not. People who retire on occupational pension incomes of more than £85 a week should make a contribution towards their incomes if they have to retire early. The hon. Gentleman described the measures that I outlined to help pensioners as window dressing. That speaks volumes for the Conservative party's attitude. Does he believe that the minimum income guarantee, which gives £15 more a week to nearly 2 million pensioners, is window dressing? The winter fuel payment of £200 is paid to every pensioner household. Is that window dressing? People can see the shape of things to come. If the Conservatives were ever re-elected, they would get rid of the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payment and many other measures that benefit millions of pensioner households.

Oral Answers to Questions — Benefit Reform

Ms Rosie Winterton: What steps he is taking to reform social security benefits in order to assist people to return to work. [154859]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The claimant count is now below 1 million for the first time since December 1975, with unemployment falling in every region. We have introduced reforms in the tax and benefit systems to make it easier to move into work and to ensure that work pays.
We have just announced the creation of "jobcentre plus", which will unite employment services with benefits services for people of working age. There will be 50 pathfinder offices by October.

Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I know from speaking this morning to the manager of the jobcentre in Doncaster that the changes that were announced today, especially the change that enables claimants who wish to take up temporary work to return to benefits more easily, will make a genuine difference to helping to get people back to work. It will give people greater confidence about taking up temporary work and thus gaining greater experience and skills, enabling them to get a permanent job.
If the scheme is as successful as the manager of the jobcentre in Doncaster believes that it will prove, will my hon. Friend consider extending it to other claimants such as those on incapacity benefit and income support?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are more people in work than ever before—the figure has increased by 1.2 million since the election—but we want to ensure that the chance to work and the opportunity to make work pay apply to even more people. Rapid reclaim, which allows people to return to benefits more quickly if jobs do not last longer than 12 weeks, will make a good contribution to that. We will evaluate its operation and, if there is a good case for extending it, we will consider doing so.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that one of the biggest remaining hurdles in the way of getting young people in particular off benefit and into work is the operation of some of the housing benefit rules? Will she confirm that the Government are considering an amendment to the single room rent restriction on the level of housing benefit available to young people? Is she aware that there is some suspicion in the pressure group community that consultation on that will not be adequate, leading pressure groups to believe that relaxation of the restrictions will not amount to very much?

Angela Eagle: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the relaxation of the single room rent restriction, which extends it to properties that actually exist. The shared room rent provision, which we hope will be in operation by July this year, will give single under-25s having difficulty finding rented accommodation much more chance to do so.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What additional guidance is being given to benefit offices in counties such as Cumbria—and, in particular, the Lake district—to deal with the very large increase in inquiries from people who own or work for businesses?

Angela Eagle: We have issued instructions to all benefit offices in the areas affected by foot and mouth to make clear the rules for those claiming jobseeker's allowance and for the self-employed. Benefits Agency offices must also ensure that any claims made as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak are dealt with quickly, sensitively and flexibly.

Mr. Eric Pickles: I have to tell the hon. Lady that that is not the case. When claimants make inquiries, they find that benefit offices are unaware of the flexibility rules. Will the Minister ensure that that flexibility is made known, particularly when claimants are referred by the rural hotline to local offices and receive no advice from them? Does she understand that basing this provision only in infected areas is a poor way of distributing social security benefits? A business can be greatly affected by foot and mouth but be outside the infected area: it can be a matter of just a few yards. Does the Minister regard as not particularly sensitive the advice given by local officers either to move a business into an affected area or to go bankrupt?
Will the Minister also ensure that the Secretary of State makes representations to the Chancellor to ensure that companies paying out working families tax credit to their employees receive a quick return from the Government? The cash flow and viability of rural businesses are being adversely affected when that does not happen.

Angela Eagle: We are certainly not issuing advice that businesses should go bankrupt to claim benefits. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring examples to my attention, I shall happily deal with them. However, I re-emphasise that special advice has been issued to officers in affected areas. We are in the middle of preparing extra information, which we shall make available, perhaps through local newspapers, about likely entitlements for people in particular circumstances, especially if they are self-employed. We believe that the most confusion


probably surrounds that category; employees who have been laid off certainly have a simpler way through the system. We shall make that information available, but if the hon. Gentleman can let me have examples of cases that have gone wrong, I shall ensure that such problems do not recur.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pension Credit

Mr. Phil Hope: What impact the pension credit will have on helping middle-income pensioners. [154860]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The pension credit will provide a cash addition to reward saving for single pensioners with incomes up to £135 a week and for couples on incomes of £200 a week. The credit will ensure that it will pay to save.

Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. A number of former steelworkers in my constituency receive occupational pensions that lift their incomes above the level of the minimum income guarantee. They visited my surgery and, being good Labour supporters, they supported the work that we are doing for the poorest pensioners. However, they were concerned about the way in which the system operates at the moment, whereby they are always being penalised for having saved for their retirement while they were working. We know that the Tories' proposed tax relief on savings would not benefit them at all, but will my right hon. Friend tell us how the pension credit will help those with small occupational pensions that take their income above the level of the minimum income guarantee? Will he also tell us whether, when it is introduced, it will be simple to understand and easy to claim?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises a point that I suspect will be familiar to most Members of the House. We have all met people with a modest amount saved in a bank or building society and, perhaps, a small occupational or works pension who think that, under the system that we inherited, they are not being helped through the social security system. The pension credit will ensure that if people have put money by, they will not be penalised for having done so. There will be no tariff income—the notional income that the social security system assumes pensioners receive from their savings. Indeed, from April, we are increasing the capital limits as a first stage; as a result, people who are already on the minimum income guarantee will be some £6.30 a week better off.
The object of the pension credit is to ensure that those who have saved are rewarded for their saving by receiving an additional cash top-up. As part of our proposals, some 3 million pensioners will gain because of the tax changes that we are making as we introduce the credit itself.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge no inconsistency at all between stripping £5 billion out of occupational and personal pension schemes and making such a small repayment subject to filling in a hugely complicated set of forms? Will he confirm that the savings ratio is close to a 40-year low?

Mr. Darling: One of the consequences of making the changes to corporation tax to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that we have been able to reduce corporation tax to its lowest-ever rate and, I think, the lowest rate among all our major competitors. The Conservatives never did that.
The credit will not be complicated. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all pensioners have to be written to when they retire to let them know how much pension they have accrued over the years. At the same time, we can calculate how much credit they are due, to reward them for their thrift. I cannot understand why he and his hon. Friends want to maintain a system under which, if people have saved and done exactly what successive Governments have told them to do over the years, they get punished for it. There cannot be any sense in that. The pension credit will mean that, for the first time, those who save money will get a cash top-up—a reward from the state—and that must be the right approach to encourage saving.

Mr. Andy King: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has clarified the issue in relation to income from savings because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), many visitors to my surgery have said, "I have lost out time and again because I live off some capital. I am just above the social security threshold." How many additional pensioners who lose out because of the capital thresholds will benefit from the pension credit?

Mr. Darling: More than 5 million pensioner households will gain as a result of the credit, but the issue is pretty clear. Under the system that we are introducing and under the pension credit, those who save money and who have a modest occupational pension or other income will be rewarded for their thrift; under the Conservatives, they would continue to be punished. I cannot understand the logic in the Conservative position.

Mr. Edward Leigh: What proportion of middle income pensioners are on means-tested benefits, and what will be the proportion in 2003?

Mr. Darling: That brings us back to the point that we have made over and over again. The Conservatives oppose means-tested benefits because people are getting more money. The minimum income guarantee would never have been introduced under a Conservative Administration. If there were to be a Conservative Government, there would be no minimum income guarantee.
We wanted to eradicate pensioner poverty, which is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. We also wanted to ensure that the vast majority of pensioners who had saved money and had a little in the bank were rewarded for their thrift. It is surprising that the Conservatives should find that a laughing matter. Most of us believe it to be a matter of concern. We want to reward thrift, not punish it. The divisions between the two parties are abundantly clear: if we are returned to government, pensioners will be rewarded for their thrift; if the Tories get back in, the same system will continue year after year after year.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioner Poverty

Maria Eagle: What progress is being made to eradicate pensioner poverty. [154862]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): About 2 million of the poorest pensioner households are now at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures introduced since the last election. The Pension Service, which I am announcing today, will also help the Government's drive to eradicate pensioner poverty.

Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend know how much the winter fuel payment is appreciated in my south Liverpool constituency? Unlike Conservative Members, pensioners there view it not as a gimmick or as window dressing, but as a guarantee of warmth without worry during the winter months. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give that a Labour Government will retain and build on that payment—unlike the Conservatives, who, if they were returned to power, would sneer at it and abolish it?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right: even this afternoon, the Conservatives have reminded us that they regard such measures as "window dressing" or gimmicks.
The fact is that 11 million winter fuel payments have been made this year. The payment has proved immensely popular, which is presumably why the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the Conservative spokesman on social security, had to revise his policy sharply. He is now in the unhappy position of finding that the pensions policy that he announced last May is in tatters, and instead is offering us a bureaucratic nightmare that would require every pensioner household to seek an accountant's advice before deciding whether to take the winter fuel payment in cash or to have it consolidated.
We have made it clear that eradicating pensioner poverty, and dealing with pensioner fuel poverty, is of the utmost importance. That is why we introduced the winter fuel payment. I think people are pretty clear about what the Tories really think of the payment, and what would happen to it if they were returned to power.

Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) called on the Secretary of State to build on the winter fuel payment. Will he confirm that his departmental expenditure plans show that spending on the payment will fall by a quarter next winter, because it will be cut from £200 to £150? Is that what he means by "building on it"?

Mr. Darling: I never cease to be amazed by the Liberal Democrats' views on these matters. We have delivered far more for pensioners than the Liberal Democrats have ever promised, even with the extra penny on income tax that was to be spent on this, that and the other.
The hon. Gentleman will know that every autumn we announce the uprating for pensioners, and at the same time announce the amount of the winter fuel payment. I have every confidence that pensioners who support us will have their faith in us amply rewarded yet again.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend knows only too well how many pensioners in my constituency have been helped by the Government's initiatives, but he also knows of my concern about pensioners who are not claiming their full entitlement. How does his Department propose to ensure that there is clear, easily understood information, so that pensioners can claim what is right for them—which is an entitlement and not, as the Conservatives would suggest, a handout?

Mr. Darling: The new Pension Service, which will be a dedicated service for pensioners, will, among other things, focus on how better to get across to people what is their entitlement. As a first step, the minimum income guarantee claim form, which was more than 40 pages long when originally introduced, has now been shortened to just 10 pages. Pensioners can also claim their entitlement by telephoning, and in future will be able to do so by other means as well.
We are anxious for two things to happen: we want pensioners to receive their entitlement, and we want that entitlement to be there in the first place. We will ensure that both the minimum income guarantee and the winter fuel payment, as well as other measures, are available to boost pensioners' incomes in retirement. That is crucial not just to Labour Members but, I believe, to the country as a whole.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The Government introduced stakeholder pensions to try to eradicate future pensioner poverty. Has the Secretary of State seen the Prudential's estimate that 46,000 employers are not planning to offer such pensions? What methods of persuasion does he plan to use—or will he rely entirely on the fines of up to £50,000 that would bring the Treasury between £2.3 billion and £4 billion, representing about 2p on the basic rate of tax? Who will be responsible for enforcing the fines: the Department, the Benefits Agency or the Revenue? Is this the friendly face to business of the Labour Government or is it the overweening arrogance of the state?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady was right on one point: stakeholder pensions will help to reduce the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits at or near to retirement. I hope that she can find it in her heart to support stakeholder pensions, because they provide a very good option for people who do not at present have a funded pension option.
The hon. Lady asked what we were doing to ensure that employers are aware of their obligations. Their obligation is straightforward: if they employ five or more people, they simply have to designate a stakeholder pension scheme. The Government have written to people and advertised, and companies have pointed out to employers the advantages of providing good-quality pension schemes. The combination of all those actions will have an effect, but the best way of selling any pensions product is for people to see that it works. As stakeholder pensions begin to be sold and people become more aware of their advantages, many more employers will want to ensure that their employees get the benefit of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — Benefit Take-up

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What research he has commissioned to ascertain the reasons for the variations in take-up of targeted benefits. [154863]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are always doing research—the Department commissions it—to understand the reasons for non-take-up of benefits and the circumstances of those whom the benefits aim to assist.
All findings from research undertaken by the Department are published and placed in the House of Commons Library. They have led to the redesign of forms: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the example of the income support form and the minimum income guarantee claim form, which was reduced from 40 pages to 10 in the current pilot, which will be in general use later this year.

Mr. Prentice: I recognise that the Government have done a huge amount for pensioners, but when, as my right hon. Friend said, the MIG claim form was 40 pages long, now reduced to 10, is it any wonder that there were 500,000 pensioners out there entitled to MIG but not claiming it? After a campaign that cost an arm and a leg, and the sending out of 2.4 million letters, there is still a substantial number of poor pensioners not claiming their entitlement. Why do not we embrace what I believe is the Liberal Democrat policy of making MIG universal for the over-80s, clawing back the money from those who can afford it?

Mr. Rooker: Tens of thousands of pensioners are better off by £20 a week following the MIG take-up campaign, although we do not have final figures and it is not always easy to disaggregate those who have walked into a Benefits Agency office or telephoned us from those who have called the hotline. We wrote to 2 million pensioners and had about 800,000 responses, so we have a database of more than 100,000 people who missed out because their capital was too great. Next week, when the capital limits change, they will be eligible for MIG. We can make direct contact with those who responded to our campaign, and we can get more money to the least well-off pensioners. That is what we intend to do. If we spread the money right across everybody, the increase would certainly not average £20 a head.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: When I tabled Question 19, asking the Government to ensure that all pensioners receive their winter fuel allowance before the end of this winter, it was before the end of the winter. Now, it is past the end of the winter. With reference to the variations in take-up of targeted benefits, what does the Minister say to all those who have yet to receive last winter's winter fuel payment? Is the hope that they will simply receive £50 less the next winter?

Mr. Rooker: The only people who will not have received the winter fuel payments for last winter are those who had to claim.

Mr. O'Brien: Exactly.

Mr. Rooker: Some people choose not to claim. Some men between 60 and 64, perhaps in full-time occupations,

have chosen not to claim. Anyone who claims will be paid: 11 million were paid automatically before Christmas. We are dealing with the claims as they come in. If people choose not to claim, that is up to them.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Has any research been undertaken into how pensioners hear about the minimum income guarantee? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency I have worked with the churches and distributed 20,000 leaflets to everyone attending church over the past three weeks to make them aware of the minimum income guarantee? We have been struck by the number of pensioners who were not previously aware of the benefit. What research is he undertaking to see what role the voluntary sector can play in making pensioners more aware of these benefits?

Mr. Rooker: I applaud the role played by the voluntary sector all over the country and by local authorities. Central Government have, for the first time ever, run a take-up campaign by writing directly to 2.3 million individual named pensioners, almost 900,000 of whom responded. In addition, along with other forms of advertising, there was the television campaign with Thora Hird, Peter Sallis and, in Wales, Nerys Hughes, which was well received. We have done our level best to reach as many pensioners as possible, which is borne out by those who have made successful claims. The average person who made a successful claim is £20 a week better off. That is the best testimony to our efforts.

Mr. David Willetts: Will the Minister confirm that 500,000 pensioners are entitled to the minimum income guarantee on the basis of the current rules but do not take it up, 400,000 families are entitled to the working families tax credit but do not take it up and 1 million families are entitled to the children's tax credit but do not take it up? The Government have only one take-up campaign that is working—their campaign on fraud. Their own evaluation shows that it has led people to believe that benefit fraud is easy to commit. We have the scandal of decent people being put off getting benefits by the sheer complexity of the system while fraudsters exploit that very complexity, encouraged by one of the most misconceived and ineffective advertising campaigns that a Government have ever undertaken.

Mr. Rooker: I am confirming nothing of the kind. I am not claiming that by directly contacting more than 2.3 million pensioners, we reached every pensioner who might be eligible. However, it is the first time that any Government have ever attempted to get to the poorest pensioners in that way. They are real people with names and addresses. The figure of 500,000 is an extrapolation from a 5 per cent. survey built on figures that cannot always be checked by the Department, so I am not confirming any of the hon. Gentleman's figures.

Mr. Willetts: The Minister refuses to confirm figures that he has given to the House of Commons in written answers. Let us see whether he will confirm the following figures on the costs of his Department's advertising campaigns. He said in a written answer on 26 February that the cost of all these take-up campaigns in 2000–01 was £11 million. In another written answer on 19 March, the figure had gone up to £14 million. In the departmental


report out last Friday, the figure had risen to £21 million. Which is the correct figure? Is not the truth that not only are his take-up campaigns useless but so are his parliamentary answers on how much they cost?

Mr. Rooker: I went back and checked the first written answer to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He did not read out the whole answer. The average cost of advertising in my Department in the four years since the Government took office is exactly the same as that spent by the previous Government in their last four years. They object to the fact that because we have got to grips with their legacy, we have needed to advertise more. We did not waste money advertising in the first couple of years. We have hardly spent a penny more than the previous Government did in their last four years of office. [Interruption.] No, I will stick to what I said. The Government contacted 2.3 million real people. Whatever the Conservatives might say, and whatever answers we might give on the best evidence that we have from statistical surveys, with the best will in the world, and without attacking the professionals, statistical surveys that have been extrapolated are exactly that—statistical surveys. They are not real people with real names and addresses. The Government went to 2.3 million real people with real names and addresses. That does not apply to the 500,000 hocus-pocus figure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. [Interruption.]
No; that is a statistical extrapolation. It is a legitimate figure, but it is not real people with real names and addresses.

Oral Answers to Questions — Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme

Mr. Ian Stewart: What progress is being made with the implementation of changes to the vaccine damage payment scheme. [154864]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): In July 2000, we increased the amount of the vaccine damage payment to £100,000, which is a very considerable increase on the £30,000 that we inherited in 1997. Subsequently, we have made 804 top-up payments to past recipients, to a value of more than £53 million. We intend to make the remaining outstanding changes to the disability threshold and time limits for claiming a payment in a regulatory reform order that will be provided for by the Regulatory Reform Bill, which is currently before the House.

Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is good to hear that the Government are keeping their promise to legislate by regulation on the threshold and the time limit. Will the Government tag that regulation on to either of the two social security Bills that the House is currently considering?

Mr. Bayley: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who led a magnificent campaign on behalf of the families of those very unfortunate people. Nothing, of course, can make up for their suffering, but we are determined to improve the payment scheme. We will get that legislation through the House using a regulatory reform order as soon as we can—subject, of course, to the House agreeing the Regulatory Reform Bill. I am confident, however, that the House will agree that measure. The official Opposition

have already made statements confirming that they will help us to pass those improvements to the scheme as quickly as possible, and I am sure that they will honour those commitments.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that some of those people have been waiting some time to receive that assistance, that time is of the essence, and that it is important that payments are made as quickly as possible after the orders have been passed? Will he also give an undertaking that, despite any changes, there will be no question of compensation clawback being allowed to reduce the money that is paid?

Mr. Bayley: On the latter point, provided that the victim of vaccine damage is still alive, it is possible to put the money into trust. If the money is put into trust, there would be no question of a consequential abatement of social security benefits. The vast majority of the higher-rate claims that we have received have been paid. There has been a delay only in cases in which we are going through the process of establishing trusts to achieve precisely the outcome that the right hon. Gentleman wants—to ensure that income support or other income-related benefits will not be abated because of capital being taken into account.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome the Government's commitment—which was, and is supported by the Conservative party—to ensure that there is compensation for those who are suffering from vaccine damage. However, what action will the Government take to ensure that people are aware of the availability of compensation schemes? Will they use Thora Hird and Nerys Hughes to do that? What will the Government do to ensure that the families and individuals who have been so blighted by vaccine damage can apply for compensation?

Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman rather undermines his argument that there is a bipartisan approach to the issue. The current Government, not the previous one, have made a very substantial improvement to the vaccine damage scheme that has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Claims are made because people are aware of the vaccine damage payment scheme. Fortunately and thankfully, however, not many claims are made because very few people are damaged. However, when there is damage, payments can be made. Only recently, I announced to the House another extension to the scheme, in relation to vaccinations for meningitis C.

Oral Answers to Questions — Means-testing

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the means-testing of benefits. [154866]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Investment in income-related benefits such as the minimum income guarantee and the disability income guarantee has provided the most effective and immediate way of tackling poverty.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he confirm that under the pension credit proposals, a person


who has saved £75,000 in a pension fund will be just £6 a week better off than somebody who has saved nothing at all?

Mr. Bayley: That comes badly from a party that never proposed introducing pension credit, that never proposed rewarding savings and that is happy that people who pay into pension schemes and save capital should get no benefit from the state at all. We do not share the view of the Conservative party; that is why we made our proposals for pension credit—so that those who save to provide for themselves in old age see a real benefit from doing so.

Mr. Paul Goggins: Will my hon. Friend please ignore the comments of the Opposition and their allegations about increasing means-testing? He will be aware that, since the last general election, the number of people in households forced to depend on income support and jobseeker's allowance has fallen by more than 1 million. That total includes 400,000 children. Is not that a sign that the Government are tackling poverty and that the Opposition's claims are wrong?

Mr. Bayley: One of the real indictments of the previous Government was that the number of children living in poverty trebled. One of the things that the Labour Government will be remembered for is that our policies—not least the welfare-to-work policies, but a whole range of fiscal and benefit policies too—have meant that 1.2 million children, who under the Conservatives were living in poverty, have been removed from living in poverty. That is as a result of the work of the Government.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I get quite a lot of real people with real addresses in my surgeries. One of the things that they complain most bitterly about is that whenever they come into contact with the social security system, not only do their letters get lost but they have to deal with a different person each time they go back into the system. Are there any plans to improve the system so that people can relate to the same person each time they have a problem?

Mr. Bayley: Yes, indeed there are—changes that the Conservatives did not make when they were in government. We are creating a working age agency to provide just such a service for clients: not just dumping them on benefits and leaving them in a labyrinthine system that provides no support, but providing personal advisers who will help clients both to deal with their benefit problems and to get back to work.

Oral Answers to Questions — Social Fund

Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the operation of the social fund. [154867]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Our drive to modernise and improve the social fund is already benefiting those in greatest need.
Today, I am pleased to announce that the budget for the discretionary social fund will be more than £620 million for the coming year. That is an increase of almost £25 million over last April's allocation and

includes a rise in the community care grant budget of £3 million. That will provide more help to grant applicants, especially families with children and disabled people. It contrasts with the £90 million Tory raid on the social fund that will hit hardest the poorest and most vulnerable.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that the increase in resources for the social fund that she has just announced will be widely welcomed. However, she will be aware that those who cannot get help from the social fund often face extortionate rates of interest when borrowing from elsewhere. Will she look at ways in which the social fund might link with other forms of low-cost credit, so that we as a society stop placing the highest costs on those who already have least?

Angela Eagle: I welcome my hon. Friend's observations. We believe that micro-credit, local credit unions and local exchange and trading schemes—LETS—all have a valuable role to play in assisting people on low incomes with access to borrowing small amounts. We are considering how all those provisions can interact sensibly with the benefits system.

Dr. Vincent Cable: As the Government intend to combine the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to provide an integrated service for working people, what will happen, in that system, to the social fund, which caters to that group and also to a wider group of people in need? What assurance can the Minister give us that the fund will not simply fall through the cracks in the benefits system?

Angela Eagle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the social fund will not fall through the cracks in the benefits system. I remind him that the vast majority of the discretionary social fund is spent on people of working age, and we shall certainly ensure that in changing the system and its administration—when we separate the working age agency from the pensions directorate—the social fund is adequately provided for and administered.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is not the social fund an example of the most basic necessary safety net that we have in our welfare system, as it provides help with furniture, cookers and even funeral payments? What does my hon. Friend think is the dogmatic motivation behind the Conservative party's proposing such an enormous cut in that benefit?

Angela Eagle: Taking £90 million out of the social fund would undoubtedly have a devastating effect because so much less money would be available to the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. The figures show that 50 per cent. of those who claim from the discretionary social fund are lone parents with children, so it is important to realise that the Tory policy of raiding £90 million from the social fund would hit the poorest and most vulnerable people hardest.

Oral Answers to Questions — Stakeholder Pensions

Mr. Peter Lilley: What rebate will be payable into a stakeholder pension for an employee earning (a) £9,000 and (b) £10,000 per annum who opts out of the state second pension. [154866]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the amount of rebate payable into a stakeholder pension that is contracted out of the state second pension will vary according to the age of the person concerned.

Mr. Lilley: If the original purpose of the stakeholder pension was to enable those on low earnings to opt out of the state system into privately funded pensions, why does it discriminate in practice against those on low earnings? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, whereas those with earnings of more than £10,000 will receive a rebate sufficient to buy a pension equivalent to the state pension that they forgo, those with earnings of less than £10,000 will receive only a partial rebate and, therefore, will be discriminated against? Is not that unfair, unnecessary and likely to lead to the sort of mis-selling that The Sunday Times said in an article was widespread as a direct result of the Government's policy?

Mr. Darling: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been engaging in quite a lot of revisionism recently, but he really does have a brass neck to lecture us about the mis-selling of pensions. Let me answer his question on stakeholder pensions. First, he is wrong on a fundamental point: we have always said that people on low incomes earning about £10,000 or less would do better to go into the state second pension, which doubles—and, in some cases, trebles—the amount of money that they would have received under the state earnings-related pension scheme, which we have now reformed. So low earners ought to be in the state second pension. The stakeholder pension is designed for middle and higher earners, and he is right to say that those earning approximately between £10,000 and £22,000 a year will benefit from an enhanced rebate. But it is not only on the mis-selling of pensions that he is a little forgetful, because on 21 February this year, he gave an interview to the Financial Adviser and said:
Stakeholder pensions should give savers more 'bang' for their buck.
Savers should see less of their contributions absorbed by costs and more being invested in assets which, other things being equal, will mean higher pensions when they retire.
He also said:
I would be more than surprised if a future Tory government even contemplated abolishing stakeholder pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions — Means-tested Benefits (Take-up)

Mr. John Wilkinson: What measures he proposes to introduce to increase the take-up by those eligible for means-tested welfare benefits.[154869]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We actively encourage people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.

Mr. Wilkinson: Why was it then that the Minister of State gave such a disingenuous answer to the hon.

Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), when he said that his Department did not have final figures on minimum income guarantee take-up? Is it not the case that such figures were made available in an answer given to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on 5 March, which showed that out of the 840,000 people who made inquiries, only 82,000 were eligible and took up benefits? There was a cost of about £15 million. Is it not clear that that is a gross waste of taxpayers' money? Could not the system operate more effectively?

Angela Eagle: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that making 82,000 people, on average, £20 a week better off—after being left in poverty as a result of the neglect of the previous Conservative Government—is not worth celebrating. Since the campaign is not yet over, the figures that we have given so far will not be the final figures. Next week, we will double the capital limit, which will ensure that more people are eligible for the minimum income guarantee. That stands in contrast with the Conservatives, who froze the capital limits for a decade when they were in office.

Oral Answers to Questions — Minimum Income Guarantee

Mr. John Randall: If he will make a statement on the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign. [154870]

Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the take-up of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [154873]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Two million pensioners are now £15 a week better off as a direct result of what the Government have done since 1997. The minimum income guarantee take-up campaign has encouraged thousands to claim, and resulted in significant improvements to the service delivered to pensioners.

Mr. Randall: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons for the rather disappointing take-up after the costly campaigns is that elderly people find the whole idea of means-testing extremely demeaning?

Mr. Darling: No, I do not. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, just over 900,000 people have responded as a result of our advertising campaign. If stigma or a reluctance to claim were the problem, 900,000 people would not have responded. The facts rather contradict the argument of the hon. Gentleman. The big problem that the Conservatives have is not that they are somehow concerned about means-tested benefits, but that they do not like paying more money to people who need help and would take it away if they got back in.

Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that around 50 per cent. of women pensioners do not get the full pension because they could not or did not pay full national insurance contributions and that the minimum income guarantee for pensioners—far from being a gimmick or window-dressing—is an important way of


redressing the disadvantages that women have experienced from the social security system and the labour market?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to one of the problems of the present pension system. The basic state pension has many strengths and attractions, but one of its weaknesses is that someone without the required number of contributions will not get a full pension. Many women—particularly those who did not pay the full contributions up until 1977—are retiring with pensions that are below even the basic state pension. We introduced the minimum income guarantee to make sure that all pensioners were guaranteed just that, a minimum, from next week, of more than £92 a week. The pension credit will be of great help to women who have some savings. As it will increase in line with earnings, it will benefit women significantly. All those measures are, of course, opposed by the Conservative party.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the Secretary of State now give us an answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) by saying what proportion of pensioners are on means-tested benefits now, and that proportion will be on such benefits in 2003?

Mr. Darling: The answer is about 9 per cent. I make no apology for the fact that we are paying more money than ever before to pensioners whose incomes were so low that they had to depend on income support. Unlike the Conservative party, we are determined to spend more on helping the pensioners who need help most, as well as making the long-term reforms to the pension system that were long overdue. We will change the social security system so that the pension credit ensures that people who have saved or put a little money by are rewarded for their thrift. Every one of those measures has been opposed by the Conservative party.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pension Credit

Mr. Paul Flynn: If he will bring forward the date for the introduction of the pension credit. [154872]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I have to say no. The introduction of the pension credit will require primary legislation; it is not possible to introduce it by order We have consulted and we shall shortly bring our proposals to the House, and we shall do so as soon as practicable. Legislation and planning will then be required. Therefore, it is not possible to introduce the pension credit before our planned date of 2003.

Mr. Flynn: Have not the Government achieved a triple crown of improvements for pensioners? They have introduced the £200 winter fuel payment; the biggest increase in the basic pension for 25 years, which we hope will continue; and the pension credit, which will, for the first time ever, give those pensioners who have paid into private pensions all their lives real benefit from those contributions. It is marvellous that that injustice will end. In the extra time that we have in this Parliament, is it possible to get some swift legislation through?

Mr. Rooker: That is a matter for the business managers. However, we will introduce the proposals that result from the consultation as soon as we possibly can. The introduction of the pension credit will, for the first time since 1948, ensure that it pays to save. The way that the welfare state has worked—Ministers were never honest enough to admit it—meant that it has never paid to save for people on moderate earnings and small pensions. With the pension credit, it will pay to save for the first time. That is a great tribute to the work of this Government in this Parliament.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that his initial answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was not very convincing? Surely, if the House has the will, legislation can he passed quickly. Will the Minister therefore re-examine the possibility of introducing the credit in 2002? In addition, what is his estimate of the effect that the pension credit will have on Treasury funds, and what is that when we remember the £5 billion tax raid that the Government have perpetrated on pension funds?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The consultation has taken several months and we have received more than 400 submissions on the pension credit. We have not yet announced our final decision as to the shape of the credit. Although I would like to answer his question in detail, I cannot because the mechanics of the finances of the pension credit have to take account of the consultation and its interaction with other benefits, such as council tax benefit and housing benefit. Only after we have made our announcement on the policy can we instruct the parliamentary draftsman to get to work on drafting primary legislation. That is why we cannot do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I would also caution against rushing. More than half the pensioners in this country will benefit from the pension credit. Therefore, it is crucial that, when it is delivered, it works. If we rush it and it does not work, no one will thank us.

Oral Answers to Questions — Child Benefit

Mr. Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement on take-up of child benefit since 1997. [154874]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Child benefit is paid to more than 7 million families: virtually all families with children receive it. Since 1997, we have increased the rate of child benefit for the first child by 26 per cent. in real terms—to £15 a week. From next week, this will increase again to £15.50 and to £10.35 for all other children.

Mr. Miller: For the 10,500 families in Ellesmere Port and Neston who gain from child benefit, that sum represents an extra expenditure over and above inflation of more than £1.5 million since 1997. It is truly welcome. However, will my hon. Friend ensure that, when future programmes in other parts of the Department's work are considered, special attention is given to those areas of my constituency where there is still child poverty?

Angela Eagle: It is one of the Government's aims to end child poverty within 20 years, and more than 1 million children will be lifted out of poverty in this Parliament. Therefore, we are on track to achieve our aim. The Tories tripled child poverty during their time in office, and I contrast our record on child benefit and the increase of 26 per cent. with the three-year freeze in child benefit between 1988 and 1990 that was the Tory legacy.

Mr. John Bercow: What proportion of wealthy households do not claim child benefit?

Angela Eagle: Child benefit claim rates are almost 100 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioner Poverty

Mr. Brian White: What progress is being made to combat pensioner poverty. [154878]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The answer is simple: our record speaks volumes, as the whole of the past hour has shown. More than 2 million of the poorest pensioners in this country are now at least £15 a week or £800 a year better off in real terms. People on the basic minimum income guarantee receive £78.45 this week. Next week, their income will go up to £92.15.

Mr. White: The pension credit will bring many more people out of poverty, but will my right hon. Friend say what he is doing for those people prior to the introduction of the credit?

Mr. Rooker: As my hon. Friend knows, there will be further increases as the transition to pension credit is effected. That is why there has been an increase in the basic state pension this year that is over and above both the earnings link and the prices link. In addition, we are in any event committed to raising the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings.

Local Elections

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the deferral of the local government elections, which were due to take place next month.
On 3 May, elections for 34 English county councils and 11 English unitary authorities were scheduled, and slightly less than a fortnight later, on Wednesday 16 May, elections for 26 district councils in Northern Ireland were also due. However, the House will be aware of the considerable scale of representations that we have received to defer those elections because of foot and mouth disease. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has now made clear, we have listened very carefully to those representations.
We judge that, in terms of practical arrangements, polling in May would be possible and would produce fair results. Following changes to the law brought into force on 16 February, postal votes in England and Wales are now available on demand to any voter. With a handful of exceptions, schools—in which many polling stations are sited—have remained open and operational in all foot and mouth disease areas. Moreover, as all of us are aware, the form of election campaigns has changed over the years: for example, telephone canvassing is now a key way in which voters in rural and urban areas are contacted by candidates and political parties.
We have also taken careful note of the impact on tourism and the message that any lengthy deferral might send out. On the other side of the equation, however, is the need for national and, in some areas, local politicians to be focused on the fight against foot and mouth disease as the necessary machinery to deal with any eventuality is put in place; and the feelings and sensitivities of people in the communities most severely affected by that dreadful disease.
Taking account of those considerations, we have decided that these local elections should be deferred for a short period: in the case of England and Wales, for five weeks, from 3 May to Thursday 7 June; and in the case of Northern Ireland, for three weeks, from 16 May to 7 June also. Some district and borough council by-elections are due on 3 May and others could be held on each Thursday thereafter before 7 June. In the circumstances, the Government believe it will be best if all by-elections in that period are also postponed until 7 June. In the time scale, however, it is not practical to defer by-elections that are due before 3 May.
A Bill to ask the House and the other place to give effect to those deferrals will be introduced as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a statement immediately after this one about the effect on the House's business As preparations for local elections on 3 May in England and Wales and 16 May in Northern Ireland will have to continue until and unless legislation for their deferral receives Royal Assent, it is plainly in everyone's interest that the legislation should be passed as quickly as possible. There are a number of detailed consequential matters which will have to be dealt with in the legislation. I will therefore make arrangements for the Opposition parties to have an outline of the draft legislation later today.
The House will be aware that the cost of administering local elections falls on the local authorities concerned. In respect of the elections that were due to take place in May, local authorities have already incurred expenditure and will be obliged to go on incurring such expenditure unless and until the new Bill receives Royal Assent. We shall accordingly take powers in the Bill to compensate local authorities for expenditure legitimately and unavoidably incurred. Although nominations for the elections due on 3 May do not close until tomorrow—and those for Northern Ireland do not close until later this month—some candidates may have incurred additional costs because of the deferral. They should be relatively small, but to cover them the maximum limit on candidates' expenses will be increased in the Bill by 50 per cent. The Bill will also provide that candidates validly nominated for elections due on 3 May will not have to resubmit their nomination papers.
Delaying elections is not a step ever to be taken lightly. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree with me that a relatively short postponement of the kind that I have set out is the appropriate response in the circumstances.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I thank the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in providing me with a copy of his statement in advance? Conservative Members are glad about the Government's belated recognition that there really is a crisis in this country, which is affecting the countryside and farmers badly, and that local elections would have been inappropriate in those circumstances. However, it is unfortunate that the Government decided not to consult the Opposition at all prior to making their decision on an important constitutional matter. Members will be aware of the tradition that, when important constitutional matters are involved, there should be contact with the Opposition. It is regrettable that that did not happen. But, of course, we know that even Cabinet Ministers were unaware of what the Prime Minister and his spin doctors were thinking.
Are not today's developments yet another chapter in the catalogue of dithering and delay that has characterised the Government's handling of the foot and mouth crisis? It was we who called for compensation for farmers who suffered irrecoverable losses, and it took the Government two weeks to announce it. It was we who called for the Government to make use of the Army, and it took them another nine days even to begin deploying troops. It was we who called for rate relief for rural businesses, and it took the Government a week to decide to undertake that. It was we who called for legislation to allow postponement of the local elections two weeks before the legal timetable for those elections had commenced, At the time the Leader of the House said that such a move would be "catastrophically wrong". The Prime Minister's official spokesman said:
We are not going down that road".
But now, at this late stage, the Home Secretary comes to the House and says that the elections will need to be postponed until 7 June.
If the foot and mouth outbreak is the reason for putting the elections off, how can the Government work to such an arbitrary date? What will the Government do if the crisis continues, and is not resolved at that time? What criteria will the Prime Minister use to determine whether to go ahead then—or is that date written in tablets of stone? We need answers to those important questions.
The Prime Minister said this morning that it was necessary to put in place immediate short and long-term strategies to ensure eradication of the disease. The Prime Minister has shown no leadership. He said that while the crisis was still going on, it would not be appropriate to hold the elections. Is it not entirely consistent with the principle of delaying those elections that while the crisis remains unresolved, until and possibly beyond 7 June, the argument stands for focusing on combating the disease rather than on the elections?
Will the Home Secretary therefore say clearly today whether it is planned that those elections will go ahead regardless of the progress and the circumstances of the current crisis—despite the fact that the Prime Minister said this morning that it would be better to focus on the fight against foot and mouth, and that one of his key criteria for deciding in favour of postponement was the feeling in local communities?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that there were no practical impediments in the way of having the local elections on 3 May? Does he realise that areas such as Devon and Cumbria, which are particularly badly affected—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.

Miss Widdecombe: No wonder Labour Members do not want to hear these important questions. [Interruption.] No wonder they do not want to be challenged on the profoundly inadequate handling of a national crisis.
Will the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who have both claimed that there are no practical impediments, recognise that in Devon and Cumbria, which are particularly badly affected, there are many candidates who are farmers? How are they supposed to press their candidature if they cannot move about?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a clear case for flexibility in the proposed legislation, and that to fix a date of 7 June in the Bill would be both inappropriate and premature? Does he accept that the legislation should be framed around taking the necessary powers to set a new date, because it is clear that it would not be responsible to fix the date now? Might it not, indeed, be right for local elections in some areas that have been particularly affected to be delayed longer than the one month that the legislation would allow—[Interruption.]
I am afraid that the attitude on the Government Benches shows how seriously Labour Members do not take what is going on in the countryside, and how little respect they have for the people who are asking these questions—the people who are affected.
As the Home Secretary will appreciate, his announcement raises several extremely important legal and practical issues. What about the closing of nominations for the local elections, which is due to take place at midday tomorrow? I understand that before the right hon. Gentleman's statement, the Home Office had been telling local authorities that the deadline would be extended into May. Do the Government intend that the deadline should be

so extended, and if so, for how long? How will they bring that about, given that there will be no legislation in place by tomorrow, when the deadline expires?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about literature printed in good faith by candidates who believed the Government's previous firm assurances that the elections would take place on 3 May? Will those candidates be compensated for their expenditure on that literature—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Miss Widdecombe: The more questions we ask, the more desperate Labour Members become. All over this country, people representing all the major parties will be disgusted by the fact that these questions are being treated as trivial.
I welcome the decision to increase candidates' expenditure limits, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a 50 per cent. increase is enough where candidates may have had to destroy all their election literature? I also welcome the decision to reimburse local councils that have incurred, or will incur, unavoidable expenditure because of the postponement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be further special arrangements for postal voting, and especially for the delivery of election addresses, in areas that are particularly badly affected by the foot and mouth crisis? Will he comment on the legal issues resulting from the legal requirement for councils to hold annual meetings in April and May, and for the election of mayors and the commencement of new budgets in that time?
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that these are important issues which could and should have been resolved much earlier, and that the legislation should have been produced before 26 March, as we said? Will he also comment on the rolling register, and on the extension of the deadline previously set at 12 March?
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Too long because too much has been unattended to. If the Home Secretary had covered these matters in his statement, I would not have to ask him obvious questions now. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the disgraceful way in which the decision was announced? Will he confirm that Labour party spin doctors were authorised to leak the announcement to the press on Friday evening? Perhaps he could tell us whether the Prime Minister's official spokesman was involved in that.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Cabinet was kept in the dark about the Prime Minister's change of mind—so much so that the Culture Secretary embarrassed himself and the Government by making contradictory statements about the matter within a couple of hours on Saturday morning? Does the Home Secretary regret that? Did he become aware of the decision before or after the press were told? The Government have dithered and delayed on the issue for the past two weeks. Their actions to date will have inspired no confidence among the public in their ability to handle the crisis.

Mr. Straw: I will, as ever, seek to answer as many of the right hon. Lady's questions as possible and as the time allows. However, you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I observe that the right hon. Lady has only one gear—


a very high gear. She invited us all to accept that we were speaking of a national crisis, then treated us to a party political rant, with posturing and invective.
The gravamen of the right hon. Lady's remarks was whether it would not be better to defer the elections indefinitely. We all understand that there are some on the Conservative Benches who would like to see the local elections and any general election deferred through this year and well past May 2002. However, there are significant practical reasons why it would not be sensible to delay the unitary and county council elections beyond the date in June or thereabouts. [interruption.] I will explain why, if right hon. and hon. Members will hear me out. It is extremely important.
If we were to defer the elections indefinitely, we would have to do one of two things. We would also have to defer by-elections indefinitely as well. At each four-year cycle of any council, about a quarter of all candidates retire or resign. Most of those, we anticipate, will be willing to serve for a further three, four or, as it happens, five weeks. As they have made their own decision to retire or, in many cases, among all three parties, have been deselected, I do not believe that almost any of them could or would be willing to be nominated for those vacancies. The effect of deferring the elections indefinitely and prohibiting by-elections meanwhile—

Mr. Oliver Heald: That is not true.

Mr. Straw: It is absolutely true. Hon. Members may shake their heads, but the effect would be to leave those areas unrepresented, and also to secure a situation in which, by chance or by death, control of those councils changed. The alternative is not to defer by-elections, but that would mean ending up with a situation such as that in which the Conservatives are already complicit in the city of Carlisle. The agent of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is now standing as a candidate there in a by-election that was called by the Conservatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a city."] But it is also part of the designated area for foot and mouth disease. I remind hon. Members that the whole of Cumbria is covered by foot and mouth prohibitions.
Without our decision, an increasing number of by-elections would be triggered not only in metropolitan and urban areas, but across rural areas, in place of sensible, all-out elections on 7 June. It is for that reason that the decision is supported by sensible Conservatives such as the Conservative leader of Hampshire county council. When he was asked whether he agreed with the decision that was announced this morning, it was clear that, unlike the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), he saw the sense in it. He said that he was "rather glad" about the announcement. So, we have good, thinking Conservatives on our side, even though the right hon. Lady would not claim to be a member of that tendency.
I shall now deal with the legal and practical difficulties that the right hon. Lady raised. On the close of nominations, unless and until the legislation is introduced, the arrangements for the elections on 3 May and 16 May will continue. The legislation will provide, however, that nominations for the elections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that have been made by the due date will stay valid—unless, of course, candidates decide to withdraw them of their own volition.
On compensation, I am happy to talk to the Opposition parties about whether compensation to a degree can be provided to candidates or their parties. Obviously, there will have to be a separate scheme for independents. We think that 50 per cent. is enough, but we are happy to consider any evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "50 per cent. compensation?"] Not 50 per cent. compensation, but a 50 per cent. increase in the limit on expenses. Notwithstanding our judgment that most candidates will, in practice, have spent little money, it would plainly be wrong for a candidate who had spent money in anticipation of elections on 3 May then to be outwith the limit through no fault of his or her own.
We have considered the delivery of a free post, which I think the right hon. Lady had in mind, but we do not think that it is practical in the circumstances. On the legal requirements for annual meetings, I am again happy to speak to the Opposition parties, but the proposed law will provide for the annual cycle of meetings, which would usually occur in May in respect of the affected councils, to take place in June, after the new local elections on 7 June.
I conclude by returning to the right hon. Lady's point about dithering. I can think of no greater dithering—something with which the Opposition's approach has been replete—than not deciding on a clear date that is plainly in the interests of the country as a whole. As many Opposition Members claim to represent rural areas, they should listen not only to the voices of people in the farming community, but to those of people in the tourist industry, some of whose representatives have now welcomed the decision and the certainty that it brings, but have said that on no account, in the interests of the rural economy as a whole, should the date be deferred beyond 7 June.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Although I fully understand the Opposition's strategy of wanting elections delayed until their political fortunes improve, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any estimate of how long the elections would have to be delayed in order for that objective to be achieved?

Mr. Straw: I was thinking about the Opposition and their behaviour in recent weeks. They make the Opposition that I adorned in the early 1980s appear a paradigm of virtue.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thought that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was trying to use up all the time between now and 7 June in asking her questions. I shall be much briefer.
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill and the change of election date, except in Northern Ireland, to which I shall revert shortly. Although we do not have a reputation for being soft on Labour or soft on the policies of Labour, we believe that it was right for the Prime Minister to wait until the weekend to make a decision. It may not be in the interests of parties or politicians to defer the election, but the decision clearly reflected a strong national mood and is in the interests of the country.
Subject to examining the fine print, we will expedite the Bill's progress so that certainty can be provided as soon as possible. The Bill has the advantage of setting a


definite date so that we can concentrate on foot and mouth for the next few weeks. It also enables the tourist industry to know that it will be business as usual soon, and to encourage people to go to the many places in Britain that we want them to visit.
I have two technical questions. First, will local authorities receive full compensation for all the expenses that they have incurred? Secondly, will the Home Secretary re-examine the decision to postpone the Northern Irish elections? Northern Ireland is a foot and mouth-free Province. The tradition is to hold local elections there on the third Wednesday of May. Is the Home Secretary willing to consider proceeding with them?
When will we have a guarantee that, in future, Ministers will make announcements to Parliament, not national newspapers, and when will we end the pretence that we are not considering the day of the general election as well as that of local elections?

Mr. Straw: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. [Interruption.] I believe that Conservative Members will regret their leadership's position, such as it is. The Conservative leadership is plainly devoid of the ability to rise to meet the national interest. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House for calm.

Mr. Straw: In so far as I can judge, the Conservative approach of switch and switch again to every issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. The number of statements by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, calling for the election to be held the next day if not the day before, is astonishing. I shall not bore the House by reading them out, but they are all on the record. Their policy of switch and switch again is determined by the Leader of the Opposition's approach to politics, which is to put his finger in the air every morning to ascertain which way the wind is blowing and hope that people will not notice.
I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about balancing the need to take account of the sensibilities and sensitivities in rural areas and farming communities and to ensure a period when all are engaged in fighting foot and mouth against not stringing the matter out indefinitely. That would send out the wrong message, especially about tourism. All of us who know and love the countryside realise that tourism and agriculture are inextricably linked, but that for every 1 per cent. of gross domestic product that comes from agriculture, 7 per cent. of GDP, our wealth and our jobs, is generated by tourism.
We will provide full compensation for expenses that were unavoidably incurred by local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to look again at another matter, and I will be happy to discuss that with him. On the issue of general elections, he knows that the timing of any general election is a matter on which the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, advises Her Majesty.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have watched with great distress the television coverage of the immolation of

the carcases of the animals that have so far been killed, and those who are affected in those areas—the people who are desperately anxious about what is happening to their tourist businesses, tourist accommodation and so on—will be filled with contempt for the way in which the desperate rabble on the Conservative Benches has attempted to derive party political advantage from the distress of those people? My right hon. Friend talked about the effect of foot and mouth on tourism, but Conservative Members are most worried about the effect on Toryism. Are not Conservative Members trying to enunciate the novel doctrine that the prerogative of deciding the date of an election should lie not only with the Leader of the Opposition, but with the most unpopular Leader of the Opposition since polling began?

Mr. Straw: I agree with my right hon. Friend. As I said earlier, I think that the Conservative Opposition will come to regret the stand that they have taken.

Mr. Tim Collins: I believe that the vast majority of people of all political opinions—and of none—in Cumbria will welcome the announcement that the elections will not take place in May. However, they will wonder whether the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are right to suggest that, in no circumstances, however bad the foot and mouth crisis becomes, would they contemplate moving the elections from June.
May I also check an important technical point with the Home Secretary? In his statement, he talked about the fact that many village schools would still be open and would therefore be able to serve as polling stations. He may know that returning officers across Cumbria have been told that village halls—which provide the bulk of polling stations in rural areas because the schools have long since closed—will not be open for an election in May, and will probably not be available to act as polling stations in June either. Will the Home Secretary please address that question, and the case that returning officers are making for universal automatic postal voting in Cumbria as the only way of ensuring a substantial voter turnout, whenever the elections take place?

Mr. Straw: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of balance. As the Prime Minister made clear earlier today, we believe that we have got the balance right. Of course we have thought about and worked through other altenatives. However, despite the calls from some Opposition Members when I was trying to explain the issue of by-elections, it could not be right to leave whole areas—including whole areas of Cumbria—unrepresented by not holding local county council elections in the near future.
To defer those elections indefinitely could mean either that large tracts of Cumbria, for example, would have no county councillors at all—on average, a quarter of all county wards in England, all of them single-member wards, would have no representation at all—or that the object of postponement would be defeated, because there would be a continuing cycle of by-elections as the inevitable casual by vacancies caused by resignation or retirement took place. That is why we judged that certainty, in the form of a deferral of five weeks, was sensible.
I shall be happy to discuss the hon. Gentleman's point about village halls with him, and also to ensure that discussions on the matter take place with the returning officers and, of course, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We have considered universal automatic postal votes, but we judged that they were not necessary. They might well have been necessary—as might emergency legislation to that effect—had we not already had provisions in force from in 16 February for everyone to obtain a postal vote on demand.
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware—because it has not yet been formally announced—that we have also put in place an increase in the advertising campaign run by the electoral registration officers, the better to provide information about how to apply for a form. The forms will be very easily available, including on the internet.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to those of us who have argued that politicians should be fighting foot and mouth, not each other, in May. Did not the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) exceed even herself in her misjudgment of the mood of the House and the country? Is he aware that the chief of tourism in the south-west of England, Malcolm Bell, said today that he warmly welcomes the postponement of the local elections to June, although he added that the open-ended postponement advocated by the Conservative party would be absolutely disastrous for the British tourism industry?

Mr. Straw: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the statement: because he represents an area that is one of those worst affected by foot and mouth disease and one of the most important for tourism in the country, he is also one of those to whom my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and I have listened carefully. I am aware of Mr. Bell's comments welcoming the decision to defer until 7 June, but no further. I have also had drawn to my attention, for example, comments by Carole Hutchings of the South Devon tourist association, who describes herself as a farmer on Dartmoor as well as someone who runs tourist attractions. She says that she too, is glad of the deferment—but again, not beyond that date.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Home Secretary recognise that in Northern Ireland farming represents a much larger percentage of gross domestic product than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Hence there has been huge anxiety about whether an election would be held, as had been forecast, on 3 May. I welcome the Government's decision, although given the veterinary advice that was available I am puzzled as to why it was not made sooner.
Like most Members and the Government, I hope that, by 7 June, the crisis will have begun to ease. There is a crisis today and we do not want it to become a catastrophe. Can the Home Secretary reassure me that compensation due to Northern Ireland local authorities will not come out of the very hard-pressed block grant, but will be new money to replace that already expended?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the decision. The explanation for why it was not made sooner is straightforward—

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Government had told The Sun.

Mr. Straw: The decision was very difficult; it is not a laughing matter. It is unusual in peacetime for elections to be deferred, even for a short while. The most careful consideration was thus required. [Interruption.] Again, I hear sedentary comments from Conservatives; they have never deferred elections. Of course, they have abolished them altogether, however, as some of us remember. We are not going down that path.
Of course, I recognise the huge importance of farming to the economy and society of Northern Ireland; it is even greater than in many rural areas of the rest of the United Kingdom, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland loses no opportunity to remind the rest of the Cabinet of that fact. On compensation, I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman to give a detailed answer.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I welcome the sensible decision to postpone the local government elections, but will my right hon. Friend consider again—in these exceptional circumstances—allowing candidates one free mail shot to each elector, as foot and mouth may still be causing trouble?
May I also make a personal request? Speaking as one of those who will not be standing at the general election, may I ask my right hon. Friend in no circumstances to postpone these elections any further—certainly not for the 10 years, at least, that will pass before the Conservatives again become remotely electable?

Mr. Straw: I remind my hon. Friend that my announcement concerned only the postponement of local elections, rather than any other kind.
I shall be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about free mail shots, but when we have considered the matter in the recent past we have not been convinced that the cost and complexity involved would not outweigh the perceived advantages. There is no legislative cover, which would make the procedure particularly complicated and detailed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but will he give an assurance that if foot and mouth is not under control on 7 June—which, sadly, is possible—he will draft the Bill in a way that would allow elections in at least some parts of the country to be delayed beyond that date?

Mr. Straw: I regret to say that that is not possible. Our experience of the 1967 outbreak suggests that foot and mouth is likely to be with us for some time, although I shall not enter the realms of predicting the path of the disease. We have considered carefully whether it would be possible to tell one group of electors, but not another, that their elections would be deferred; but given the questions of where to draw the line and the criteria on which to draw it, and of fairness to one group of electors in relation to another, we have judged the idea to be wholly impractical.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Home Secretary has referred to the serious consequences of foot and mouth for the tourist trade, but is it not also having a severe impact on our meat exporting trade? Middlesbrough contains a meat-processing factory with 40 workers, exporting to Belgium and Holland. It has been seriously affected by the crisis.
The Home Secretary has told the House twice that a quarter of our councillors are chosen at local elections each year, and that there is a series of by-elections. Will he confirm that the budget cycle will begin in September? There is constant interaction between Government and local councils, and local council elections are as important to our democracy as national elections. Would not deferring local elections indefinitely deal a destabilising and detrimental blow to our local democracy?

Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed so eloquently on behalf of those in his area who work in the meat export trade.
The House may be interested to hear some figures. In 1999, of 11,380 councillors who were due for election, 2,695–24 per cent.—stood down. The proportion was similar last year, although fewer electoral wards and fewer councillors were involved.
My hon. Friend is right: to postpone the elections indefinitely and not to hold by-elections would cause local democracy to grind to a halt. It would plainly be unacceptable for the control of councils to pass randomly from one party to another, with no reference to the electors, as a result of acts of God or chance retirements.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Delaying the local elections only until 7 June is gesture politics at its most obvious. Will the Home Secretary confirm that foot and mouth will still be with us on 7 June? Indeed, it might even be worse. If the Prime Minister had wanted to do what was right for the country, rather than convenient for him, he would have initiated a real delay in the elections. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is a precedent for delaying local elections by a year? Incidentally, what does he intend to do about the census on 29 April, for which people will have to visit all homes personally in order to gather information?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman may not accept this—I doubt that he will—but I know for certain that the Prime Minister has taken this decision in the national interest: there is nobody more concerned about foot and mouth or anxious to ensure that it is brought properly under control, however long that takes.
There is a precedent for a delay of a week in the local elections. It occurred in 1986, when it transpired that the first Thursday in May would have coincided with the Jewish festival of Passover. Local elections were also deferred in wartime. There are no other precedents, except that elections have sometimes been abolished, as they were by the Conservatives when they got rid of the GLC.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the census. Len Cook, as the national statistician—the Office for National Statistics is responsible for conducting the census—has already issued a public statement, last week I think, drawing attention to the detailed arrangements that he is making for the canvassing, as it is called, of returns under the census, and he has made it clear that in farming areas that will be done by post.

Mr. Russell Brown: I warmly welcome today's announcement and the decision that has been taken—after long deliberation, some would say,

but certainly after careful thought by the Prime Minister. We are talking about local elections in England and Wales, and the Conservatives have said clearly over the past two weeks that all elections should be delayed, but that has not stopped the Tories in my area issuing election literature. In addition—to show how well organised the Conservatives are—they were leafleting in the wrong constituency. More importantly, my right hon. Friend should be aware that those same people have been campaigning in badly infected areas. I hope that he will investigate that. The only election that the Conservatives are really concerned about is the election of a new leader following their defeat in the general election.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes a sage observation. The problem is that we have seen no credible candidates for the leadership of the Tory party on display today. It is true that we have received reports of local Conservatives associations taking an unexpectedly active part in local politics in foot and mouth disease areas. My hon. Friend mentioned one such incident, and I have already mentioned the activities of the Conservatives in the city of Carlisle, where the agent to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is a candidate.

Mr. James Gray: Toby Sturgis and Jane Scott, who are livestock farmers in my constituency and candidates in the forthcoming local government elections, will understand and be grateful for the Home Secretary's announcement that the elections are to be deferred. They are in a restricted area and cannot currently campaign. If, God forbid, ours remains a restricted area on 7 June, how am I to explain to them that last month the election was deferred because they could not campaign, whereas this month, with conditions no better, it is suddenly all right? I cannot fob them off with an obscure point about a by-election in Carlisle—they simply will not wear it.

Mr. Straw: I have already made it clear that our judgment is that there were no practical impediments in the way of elections going ahead all over the country on 3 May, so the assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise. As we all know, electoral and campaigning methods have changed over the years. There is much greater use of telephone canvassing in rural as well as urban areas, postal voting is available on demand and the public highways are open in all areas.

Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on foot and mouth and the election date, all we have seen from the Conservatives are crocodile tears for the farmers and those employed in the tourist trade? If the Conservatives really believe that delaying the local elections is in the national interest, why, on Wednesday of last week, did the Conservative party launch its local election manifesto in Berkshire? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on this issue, the Conservatives stand condemned as nothing more than a bunch of opportunistic hypocrites?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Home Secretary to answer that question.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As a Member who represents a constituency in which foot and mouth


restrictions apply, may I ask the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to accept my thanks for this delay? It was clearly a difficult decision to make. Will the Home Secretary clarify one point with regard to the postponement of local by-elections? There are no county elections in Wales, but I believe that some by-elections are scheduled for 3 May. The rationale that the right hon. Gentleman gave for not going ahead with by-elections in England does not, therefore, apply in Wales. Will he also tell the House that it is open for tourists to come to the country areas and enjoy what they can, bearing in mind the restrictions?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I will pass on to the Prime Minister. On the postponement of local by-elections, I should have made it clear—and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and other Members representing Welsh constituencies for not doing so—that the arrangements will apply to districts in Wales as well as to counties and districts in England. There will be the same arrangements for the postponement of by-elections which would otherwise be due or have been called in respect of dates from and including 3 May. As I previously explained, for practical reasons, we cannot defer by-elections that are due on the Thursdays between now and the Thursday immediately before 3 May—that is just one of those things.
Wales is a beautiful country; a huge number of tourist opportunities are still open. I know, as someone who loves walking in the countryside, that although it is not quite as enjoyable to walk along open public highways, the walks are still very enjoyable, and the views in Wales are unsurpassed.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that to go for an indefinite delay would have been totally irresponsible and caused many problems to many local authorities in planning their annual council meetings and making the structural changes needed to comply with last year's local government legislation? Is it not also clear from the tirade from the Conservative Front Bench that, having demanded a change in the date of the elections, the Tories have not thought through the complexities of delay?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is absolutely clear from the rant of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that she and her colleagues on the Front Bench have simply failed to understand the consequences of indefinite referral. If anything were to lead to uncertainty in the countryside, an indefinite referral would.

Mr. John Redwood: Given the Government's wish to help the tourist industry, does the Home Secretary think that the Prime Minister helped when he chose, for a recent photo opportunity, a visit to the countryside covered from head to foot in protective clothing, accompanied by soldiers similarly attired for a crisis? How can we believe that the Government are serious about the tourist industry when that is the image they send out to the world?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman would have had greater cause for complaint if my right hon. Friend had gone into an infected area without protective clothing.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister on this timely and wise decision. Does it not show a proper balancing of fundamental respect for democracy with accurately listening to the views of people such as my constituents in Lancaster and Wyre? Is it not the essence of good government? Does it not contrast markedly with the squalid self-interest displayed by Opposition Front Benchers? Is not one bright lining to this cloud the fact that, rather than campaigning on Friday for a resounding Labour victory in the county council elections, Labour Members will be able to turn their attention to supporting the Children's Rights Commissioner Bill, which will be debated on that day?

Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend's Bill. I am also grateful to him—as someone who represents a constituency that contains a great many farms and rural representatives—for the points that he has made to me and to others on the need for us to take properly on board the concerns of rural areas.

Mr. James Paice: If it is sensible to delay the elections from the beginning of May to the beginning of June, but not possible or sensible to delay them any longer than that, presumably there is an advantage in that first delay. Given that the Home Secretary has already told the House that, in the Government's view, there is nothing to stop traditional and more modern methods of canvassing, presumably that advantage relates to the control of foot and mouth. Can he therefore tell us what assessment the Government have made of the likely status on 7 June of the foot and mouth outbreak—an assessment which has enabled them to believe that an election can be held on that date?

Mr. Straw: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that he is against a deferral until 7 June. I set out very clearly the considerations that we have taken into account. As I made clear, we do not believe that polling would not be possible on 3 May; we think that it would be practically possible. However, we have also taken into account the sensibilities of people in the rural areas, as well as—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today—the immediate and short-term need for a focus by national and some local politicians on the issue of foot and mouth.

Mr. Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend has already mentioned compensation for local authorities because of the deferral of the county council elections. However, there will be a considerable impact on returning officers and their staff who have to perform the urgent logistical task of transferring bookings and making other arrangements for the new elections date. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the extra work that will have to be done by returning officers and their council staff? Will he ensure that there is effective communication between the Home Department and returning officers so that, if there is confusion at any point, it can be cleared up as speedily as possible?

Mr. Straw: Of course I accept that there will be extra work. We are well aware of that, and we are extremely grateful to the staff of electoral registration officers and to the officers themselves for the extremely high standards


of administration and integrity that they bring to all elections. As I have made clear, we shall provide for compensation to local authorities for the unavoidable extra costs that they incur; and of course the Home Office wants to ensure that we have in place the most effective communications possible.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Home Secretary, please, now respond to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on the closing date for nomination of candidates in county council elections who have not yet submitted a claim? Today's announcement on delaying the county council elections will be most welcome in the Vale of York. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is estimated that the disease will peak, and that cases will quadruple, in the run-up to June? If that estimate turns out to be accurate, will he review the date?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry that I did not earlier address the nomination issue. Subject to the Bill's being acceptable to the House and to the other place, and to its receiving Royal Assent, the law will provide for the normal electoral cycle to operate. In normal local elections, the cycle of nominations being invited and closed and the other key events prior to polling day occur over 25 working days. That cycle will simply be replicated for a 7 June polling day. As I have already made clear, anybody who is validly nominated when nominations close tomorrow for the elections that were due on 3 May will be able to maintain their nomination and do no other work. Those nominations will carry forward into the new elections if the Bill receives Royal Assent.
On the disease and its peaking, obviously, when making our judgments, we have taken account of various possibilities in respect of foot and mouth. However, I am afraid that I can hold out no prospect to the hon. Lady of further review of the progress of the disease and then of the date. We judge that it is sensible, for all the reasons that I spelled out, to defer the elections for five weeks until 7 June, but not to defer them further.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the chief executives of councils in Northern Ireland recently held discussions at the Northern Ireland Office on holding the council elections and the general election on the same day? Will he also confirm that there was universal opposition to that, on the grounds that in Northern Ireland we have two different electoral systems, that the council and parliamentary boundaries do not coincide, and that there will thus be extreme difficulty in getting people's votes counted, even with the proposed delay for council elections until the following week? In those circumstances, why did the Northern Ireland authorities go ahead and order 1,000 new ballot boxes so that the two elections could be held on the same day? It will cause absolute mayhem for the electorate.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman will understand that although I brief myself as much as possible for these events, I am not aware of the ordering of ballot boxes by chief executives and district councils in Northern Ireland.
On the other point the hon. Gentleman makes, I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), that the chief executives said that it was practical to hold the local elections and a general election on the same day—whether it is desirable to do so is obviously a matter for debate.

Business Statement

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for the rest of this week.
TUESDAY 3 APRIL—Second Reading of the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL—Allocation of time motion relating to the Elections Bill and the Election Publications Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Elections Bill and the Election Publications Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 5 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 6 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will now include:
MONDAY 9 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 10 APRIL—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill.
Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment debate.
It may be convenient for the House to know that the Government will propose that on Tuesday 10 April, we have Thursday sitting hours and that, in consequence, the Westminster Hall debates scheduled for that day will not take place.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could explain why the Election Publications Bill [Lords]—a measure introduced only because an Act passed during the previous Session of this Parliament was so badly flawed that it needs change and amendment before the coming elections—will be subject to an allocation of time. The reason for the flaws in the original Act was that the measure was guillotined; a specific part of the then Bill, which was so flawed that it is the subject of the new Bill, was guillotined such that the House gave it no scrutiny whatever. Given that fact, it seems wrong that the Leader of the House should propose that the, Bill be guillotined under an allocation of time motion.
On the Elections Bill, which has just been the subject of discussion in the House, the Leader of the House will know that although we can understand why it needs to be processed reasonably quickly given the deferred date of the local elections, a lot of questions remain and it needs proper scrutiny none the less. When denying that there was a need to defer the date of the local elections, she referred to the seriousness of such an action. That is on the record of the House, so I hope that she accepts that the Elections Bill needs proper scrutiny and debate, otherwise we shall be in the same position as we were with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which was an absolute mess.

Mrs. Beckett: Opposition Members sometimes ought to give a little more thought to the words that they use. That Act was not badly drafted—that would be an insult to parliamentary draftsmen. Indeed, the issue is one not

of the Act, but of the commencement order, which the House must now consider. There was consultation on the handling of the Act and, in particular, on the order. Perhaps Opposition Members did not take part in it, but those who do not take part in the consultation cannot complain about the outcome.
This must be certainly the third time, if not the fourth, in this Parliament that, yet again, on legislation that the Opposition said they would facilitate through the House—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and its order—there appears to be a wish to impede it when it is introduced. Finally, the hon. Lady draws attention to my remarks on the seriousness of the decision that has now been announced. She will remember, if she casts her mind back, that I have always referred at the Dispatch Box to the different voices and the different opinions that were being given to the Government and the need to weigh seriously all those voices and opinions, one set of which were not often represented from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Leader of the House recall that, on 22 March, I asked her whether she would find time to consider the Review Body on Senior Salaries report on the office costs allowance? At that time, she rightly reminded me that the report had been available only for a short period, but that was a fortnight ago and we now have some extra time in which the House could consider such matters. If the House were to accept the main body of the report, the officers of the House could prepare themselves for the new intake and, if there were to be a general election sometime in June, they could get the procedures ready to induct new Members in the measures on the office costs allowance contained in the report.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has, of course, made that point to me on a previous occasion, and I fully understand his concern for the staff of the House. However, all I can say is that, although I hear the case that he makes, I cannot anticipate a further business statement.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I think that we all recognise that this business statement is an inevitable consequence of the Home Secretary's statement, but we also recognise that the real implication of that statement is that the general election will not now be held any sooner than 7 June. We may or may not be allowed to say that in good order, but that is the fact of the matter. Does the right hon. Lady accept that there are now increased opportunities for the House to consider matters that might otherwise have escaped its notice? Will she give an undertaking that several of the measures that are currently shuttling between this House and the other place will now have an opportunity for debate and resolution, including the Hunting Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill and—perhaps closest to my heart—the Adoption and Children Bill? Such legislation is long outstanding, but the House may now be able to deal with it effectively.

Mrs. Beckett: Although the hon. Gentleman talks about Bills shuttling between the House and the upper Chamber, certainly at least one of those that he


mentions—the Hunting Bill—is still in the upper Chamber, and I cannot quite recall where we are with the others, but they are still in the upper Chamber.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I spent all weekend talking to farmers and people in the tourism industry in my constituency, and I have to report that the situation is utterly desperate, especially in the tourism industry. Now that we have all these extra days and, indeed, weeks before the great day, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can have a debate on that as a matter of great urgency, because many Members of Parliament are affected? May I suggest that a Treasury Minister be asked to attend that debate?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will have heard me say that I am not in a position to anticipate the content of further business statements, nor would he expect me to do so. I shall, as ever, take heed of his remarks.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am stunned that the Leader of the House did not use the business statement as an opportunity to announce that there would be a full day's debate in Government time on foot and mouth, at which the Minister of Agriculture, the taskforce Minister—the Minister for the Environment—and a Treasury Minister would be available to answer questions. There is an opportunity now for the Leader to look at the business and announce such a debate. A national crisis is taking place and the general public will be staggered to learn that we shall go into recess from 11 April until 23 April and will not be here. Will she look at opportunities and procedures so that the House can be recalled at short notice to continue to look at ways of ameliorating the awful situation throughout the country?

Mrs. Beckett: I have taken heed of the remarks about subjects that Members wish to debate. However, I announced last week that the recess would commence on 10 April and I made it plain that that was in consideration of the dates of school holidays. If Conservative Members did not take that seriously, I cannot help that.

Mr. Mike Gapes: In view of the serious problems in agriculture, can we have an early debate on the concept of set-aside, in which we could deal with that issue, the subsidy from urban areas to rural areas and those people who seem to be advocating the set-aside of democracy in this country indefinitely?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend asks for a number of issues to be discussed, certainly in his final remarks. I have taken heed of the pressing demand from the Leader of the Opposition that we should postpone an election without coming to the House to tell hon. Members when that election might take place. That is an interesting insight into his view of what is constitutionally proper. I shall take heed of my hon. Friend's request for a debate on these fundamental issues, but I cannot undertake to find time for one in the near future.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Lady allow time for a debate on the

increasing contempt that the present Government show for the House of Commons? A perfect example of this is the handling of the terribly important constitutional issue of the date of the local government elections, news of which was first leaked to The Sun and then to the BBC. We then had the Prime Minister making a statement at No. 10 and answering questions from newspaper reporters only. Is not that insulting to democracy and to the Home Secretary, who had to come here today to make a statement that has been announced three times before?

Mrs. Beckett: As I have just reminded the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I made the point at last week's Business questions—I know that the hon. Gentleman was not able to be with us for that—that there would be an Easter recess and that it would begin on 10 April, and no Opposition Member queried that.

Dr. Julian Lewis: As I recall, the High Hedges Bill—which deals with leylandii, in particular—has been racing against time to reach its completion. It has had strong Government and all-party support until now and addresses a problem that causes serious distress to a great many people. Will the Leader of the House kindly take a close look at the possibility of furthering progress on that Bill in the extra time that is now available?

Mrs. Beckett: I am mindful of the cross-party support for the Bill. My recollection is that it is presently in Committee, but I am afraid that I am not familiar with how close it is to emerging. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he may find that the answer to his question is on his own party's Benches.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Now that we have some more time, can the Leader of the House bring the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the House to make inside the House the statement that was made in the press over the weekend about the future of the railways? That has major importance, not least in terms of the deferral of the decision on who is to get the franchise for the east coast main line.

Mrs. Beckett: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered a parliamentary question today. I understand and sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement—Members often want statements on matters of interest—but I am not entirely sure whether he would have welcomed a third statement today.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In view of what members of the lobby are saying, will the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be no provision in the Elections Bill for a further deferment from 7 June? If that is so, how will she deal with the matter? At present, foot and mouth is bad enough to justify the suspension of elections, but if it is the same or even worse on 7 June, it appears that those circumstances will not justify a further suspension.

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it is my understanding that the legislation will provide for a firm date, and I think that hon. Members would expect that. I shudder to think what


Conservative Members would say if, as the Leader of the Opposition asked, the Government introduced legislation that did not contain a date. As to the notion that, in some way, all elections must be deferred until we can be absolutely clear that the crisis is totally at an end, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I think that I am right in saying that, in 1967, a rather smaller scale crisis lasted for eight months. I doubt very much that even Conservative Members would wish us to postpone elections beyond the termination of this Parliament.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady tell us precisely how long the House will have to debate the Elections Bill on Wednesday? Will she also reconsider the plea from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and change the business for next Tuesday so that, before we rise for the Easter recess, we have an opportunity to debate these grave matters?

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to debate the Easter Adjournment and I am not able to change that. I have taken seriously the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), but I fear that, at present, I am not in a position to change the business that is before us. I am also not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the precise answer that he seeks about the time available for the Elections Bill. That matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In view of the statement made by Mr. Gerry Robinson, the chairman of the Arts Council of England, that he proposes to wind up the regional arts boards this month—a statement that was made without consulting the boards—will the right hon. Lady suggest to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that he makes a statement to the House? That would enable us to hear more about how regional accountability is to be retained. It is appropriate that we know soon in view of the statement made by Mr. Robinson.

Mrs. Beckett: My recollection is that that statement was made some little time ago. I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a statement, but I shall draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Given that the Prime Minister has said that he is taking personal control of the foot and mouth crisis in an attempt to stop it spiralling further out of control, and given that the current circumstances of the crisis, the epidemiological advice and the prognosis rightly justify in the eyes of my constituents the deferral of the local elections that were due on 3 May, what precise elements of the advice, crisis and prognosis have to be different in a month's time to justify proceeding with elections on 7 June?

Mrs. Beckett: I am being asked the same question repeatedly, as was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it has been clear latterly that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister identified last week, the scale of movement of animals before any sign of the disease manifested itself publicly or had been detected was much more than anyone had understood. Consequently, the scale of the difficulties

is greater than had originally been anticipated. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have taken account of issues such as the need to put in place the full machinery to deal with the scale of the crisis as we now appreciate it, but it may well be that all those matters can be dealt with in the time scale that we are discussing.

Sir Michael Spicer: When can we expect a decision and, therefore, a statement on vaccination against foot and mouth?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that that issue is and has been under active consideration. It is much debated and is very controversial, and he will also know that it does not offer, as media reports sometimes seem to suggest, a simple answer. All that I can say is that that option remains under active consideration and discussion.

Mr. William Ross: Can the right hon. Lady tell us when the Elections Bill will be available? So that such important matters are adequately discussed, can she assure me that the Government will not shrink from an all-night sitting if necessary?

Mrs. Beckett: I believe that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to have something for consultation later today. As for how late the House sits, that is a matter for the House as a whole. Although I have long experience of sitting late into the night in the House, I am rarely willing to do so unnecessarily.

Mr. Derek Foster: rose—

Mr. Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) that I can call only those who were present for the statement.

Mr. Forth: The Home Secretary's comments make it obvious that the Elections Bill will, of necessity, be large and complex, as it will cover many contingencies and possibilities. It will, therefore, require proper scrutiny. It might even require considerable amendment, given that the Government's track record of getting things right the first time is extremely poor. The Leader of the House has helpfully told us that we might have sight of the Bill later today, which is generous of her, and that the Bill is expected to pass through all its stages on Wednesday. Will she be even more helpful and tell us how it will be possible to table amendments at each stage, given that we have not yet seen the Bill, it is to be before the House the day after tomorrow, and it looks as though the Government will try to shove it through in one sitting?

Mrs. Beckett: It just goes to show how different people's reactions and perceptions differ. The right hon. Gentleman says that he anticipates the Bill being large and complex, but it sounds to me as though it will be a small and simple Bill—clearly, there is a difference in our perceptions. As for the way in which amendments will be tabled, it will be done in accordance with the usual


procedures of the House. The Government believe that the issues that need to be dealt with in connection with the Bill can be dealt with efficiently and expeditiously.

Dr. Peter Brand: I strongly support the calls for a full debate on foot and mouth disease, but I hope that the Leader of the House will make time available for a MAFF Minister to answer hon. Members' urgent questions. It has come to my notice that consideration is now being given to movement orders to allow livestock to be imported to the Isle of Wight. We are grateful to have been without foot and mouth and we have been careful to maintain disinfectant barriers at all our ferries. It would be wholly disastrous if livestock were allowed to move into an area that is the best protected in England.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of any such proposals, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: This morning, I accompanied Mr. and Mrs. Hobbs to No. 10 Downing street to present a petition. Just before Christmas, their eight-year-old daughter and her grandmother were killed on the A249, which is a notoriously dreadful road. The county council has finally agreed to build a bridge to join the two halves of their village, and the petition asks the Government for financial assistance. Given that today the Deputy Prime Minister said on the radio that he is commissioning the second half of the channel tunnel rail link—a project that, as far as one can tell, will cost £70 per passenger in subsidy—will he come to the House and explain the Government's transport priorities?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman, perfectly properly, makes a strong case on his constituents' behalf, and I am

sure that the whole House sympathises with them in the terrible tragedy that they have suffered. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, while there are always many desirable improvements to be made, the fundamental infrastructure, of which the channel tunnel rail link is a part, must also be taken into account. The balance is sometimes difficult to weigh.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Leader of the House believe that the way in which the serious announcement that has led to her statement today was made first to The Sun, before being made to the Cabinet and Parliament, is satisfactory?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion, but as a member of the Cabinet I have no complaints.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that consideration of the remaining stages of the International Development Bill has been deferred from this week to next and that an opportunity has thus inadvertently been created for sober reflection, will the right hon. Lady undertake to speak to the Secretary of State for International Development and then to guarantee that there will be adequate time in next week's consideration fully to debate the issue of whether to incorporate into that Bill the OECD convention against international bribery in business dealings?

Mrs. Beckett: I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. However, as the Bill is well prepared and has already had a great deal of sober reflection, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will share the hon. Gentleman's view that it should be amended. As someone who wishes legislation to go through the House in good order, I do not seek to encourage people to amend legislation.

Marks and Spencer

Helen Jones: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
Last Thursday, Marks and Spencer announced a restructuring programme, including the closure of its direct catalogue business. That closure will have more impact on my constituency than on any other, as both the call centre and the fulfilment business in Warrington, North will close with the loss of 686 jobs. Most of the staff who work in those operations are recruited locally. In view of the impact that that will have, it is important to have an urgent debate on the matter in the House so that we can hear from Ministers what consultations they have been able to have with the company, and discuss how to mitigate the impact on Warrington, North.
The implications for the local area are serious, so it is vital that we have an opportunity to discuss what assistance can be given to find alternative jobs for those staff and the possibilities of bringing into the area another firm or firms that can make use of the premises and find employment for those who are already well trained and well motivated. The matter is urgent, if we act quickly, we have a very good chance of finding employment for many of the staff involved, especially the call centre staff, of whom there is a shortage nationally. It is also important that we resolve the dilemma in which many people in the firm now find themselves, as they do not know what their future will be. Like the rest of us, they have bills and mortgages to pay, but they have been left in limbo. It is important that the House takes an early opportunity to discuss the matter so that their future can be assured and we can play our part in making that future secure.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said and have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance. As you are aware, the Prime Minister graciously agrees to come to the House once a week for Prime Minister's Question Time on a Wednesday. As it now transpires that, more than 48 hours ago, certain people outside the House and the Government knew more than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about what was happening to the local elections, would it be possible for the House to be kept better informed about important issues by arranging a question time for Mr. Trevor Kavanagh? That would enable us to be better informed of what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Bill Olner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a common courtesy for Members of Parliament who visit another constituency to advise the Member of Parliament for that constituency of their visit? Does not that apply to Front-Bench spokespeople as well? May I advise the House that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, came to my constituency on Saturday and spoke—in my opinion—in a way that was just for the Tory party? She did not tell my constituents the truth about how the Tories cut the police budget in the past and how we have increased it. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, that that discourtesy should go unchallenged? The right hon. Lady was discourteous in not advising me, and neither the local authority nor the police authority knew of her visit.

Mr. Speaker: Any hon. Member visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency should have the courtesy to inform him, but that is not a matter for the Chair to get involved in. The argument should be settled without involving the Chair.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), Mr. Speaker. Not only have we all been observing over the weekend the extraordinary spectacle of the newspapers carrying reports about the postponement of the local elections, but by consulting Ceefax earlier today, I found out that the Prime Minister apparently made a statement at No.10, instead of coming to the House. Surely it is a grave discourtesy to the House for the Prime Minister, who has made such an issue of moving the elections, to announce the postponement on the steps of Downing street and then fail to turn up here himself, sending the Home Secretary instead, as his running boy, to do the job for him.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that there is a point of order for your consideration, because of the discourtesy to the House. On "The World At One" today, Mr. Trevor Kavanagh of The Sun admitted that he had been briefed, by a source that he has found reliable, that the local elections were to be put off. For The Sun to have carried that headline on Saturday, he must have been briefed on


Friday. That is a matter for the House; that news should have been reported to us first. The political editor of The Sun has admitted to having been briefed. Surely that is a discourtesy to the House, which we should address.

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with that matter. It is not for me to find out where a journalist got his information from. In fact, it is refreshing to know that some journalists actually go and seek information before writing an article.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the helpful explanation by the Leader of the House about the Bill that will deal with the local elections, can you confirm that, in view of the fact that we have not seen the Bill yet—presumably it will have its First Reading either later today or tomorrow, and go through all its other stages on Wednesday—it will be acceptable for amendments to be tabled in advance of Second Reading, so that you can consider whether they are in order for consideration in Committee and on Report? Bills being shoved through all their stages on the same day is becoming a regrettably regular occurrence—something that I hope you would deprecate in normal circumstances. I hope that you will confirm that we will be able to table amendments in advance of Second Reading, because I think that they will be very necessary for such a Bill.

Mr. Speaker: If the Government table a motion to allow the right hon. Gentleman to table amendments, and the House agrees to it, he and other hon. Members will be able to do so.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that in every election that you and I have fought since 1979, statements have been made to the press before announcements have been made to the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw the Chair into the argument.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave your office notice of my point of order this morning. You have tried to be very helpful to those of us whose constituencies are suffering from the dreadful disease of foot and mouth, and you will know that during the debate on foot and mouth a fortnight ago, the Minister of Agriculture agreed that he would arrange for a presentation on the subject to be given to Members of Parliament. He said that he would do that last week: last week, during his statement, I raised the matter again; he reiterated his commitment and said that he would arrange for the presentation to be made either at the end of last week or this week. I tried to get a date from his office this morning, but was told that no date had yet been fixed. Could you, on behalf of Back Benchers, whose champion you are, find out when the Minister will honour the commitment that he gave the House in your presence?

Mr. Speaker: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the Minister.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past, when I have raised the matter of statements is being leaked to the media before being made in the House, you have unequivocally condemned that. Accepting the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about general elections, would you give us your guidance on the matter of a statement being made about the postponement of the county council elections, and whether it would have been the correct procedure for the Ministers responsible for that to have made the statement to the House, and not to have leaked it to The Sun?

Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with that matter.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, I discovered that a landfill site was to be opened in Fosterville in my constituency, which is an uninfected area, and that it was to receive carcases from an infected area. I discovered all that not from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but from media contacts. I asked the Minister of Agriculture at once to give an explanation of what was going on; I have heard nothing. Over the weekend, I have been contacted by terrified farmers who have land adjacent to the site and who are wondering what is happening. They have no information and are extremely worried that animals from an infected area are to be brought to farms adjacent to theirs. My point of order is this: have you received any request from the Minister of Agriculture to explain his policy to the House? Were you to receive such a request, would you give it favourable consideration?

Mr. Speaker: I have received no such request.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, not for the first time and not for the last. Further to your earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and in the light of the fact that no fewer than 12 constituents raised the subject with me in the course of two hours over the weekend, can you confirm so that it is clear beyond doubt that there is apparently a distinction between the announcement of a policy, which should properly by made 1by Ministers in the House before it is communicated to the wider world, and the deferment of an election, which apparently entails no such requirement? What is the basis in "Erskine May" for that apparent distinction?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not for the Chair.

Mr. Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary made a statement to the House this afternoon, which the House no doubt found helpful. I subsequently discovered, to my amazement, that earlier today the Home Office had issued to local authorities affected by the elections all the information in the statement made to the House. In one way, that is sensible. However, it means that people outside the House were given information that was not given to the House until 3.30 this afternoon. Should not the guidance given to local authorities be made available to hon. Members at the same time, rather than later?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concern has been noted and that Ministers will give due regard to his comments.

BILL PRESENTED

WHEEL CLAMPING (RESTRICTIONS)

Ms Oona King, supported by Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Geraint Davies, Mr. Keith Darvill, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Ms Karen Buck, Ms Linda Perham, Ms Ruth Kelly and Ms Sally Keeble, presented a Bill to provide for the maximum fee payable for the release of a wheel clamp and for the minimum time which must elapse before a vehicle may be clamped: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 79].

Orders of the Day — Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords]

Not amended in the Committee, considered.

Clause 1

EXTENT OF DUTY TO FUND ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'(3) No regulations under subsection (1) of section 13 shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
Although the Bill is relatively limited in scope, the House would do well to consider its implications in detail. There is an increasing tendency for Bills to include provision for regulations or statutory instruments, and to allow almost complete discretion to the Secretary of State of the day as to how those will be carried forward.
The Bill touches on several important topics. It refers to the
duty of the Legal Services Commission to fund advice and assistance",
which potentially interests a large number of people. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of the extent to which the role of the Legal Services Commission regarding funding, advice and assistance can have a distressing impact on people's lives. I am sure that we have all heard about our constituents' experiences and are in no doubt that the Bill is of considerable importance in that respect.
However, that importance is increased by phrases such as
shall be treated as having been enacted".
Regrettably, more and more of the Bills that are considered by Parliament are inadequately drafted, although bad provisions are more likely to be introduced because the Government have made amendments on the hoof. Furthermore, we are not given sufficient opportunity to give such measures proper scrutiny and consideration in Committee or on Report. We increasingly have to correct legislation long after it has received Royal Assent. Indeed, another such Bill will be considered later this evening.
The Bill is a graphic illustration of the fact that legislation introduced in the current Parliament has become increasingly fragile, as the Government are either incapable of allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny or are unwilling to do so.

Mr. John Burnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are considering a corrective Bill that seeks to rectify errors that were made in the drafting of the Access to Justice Act 1999?

Mr. Forth: The phrase "correcting errors" is of key importance, as we find ourselves constantly having to return to legislation. I could name any number of measures to which I should like to return, not least among which are the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, the Child


Support Act 1995 and many others for which the Conservative Government were responsible. I do not make any particular distinction in that regard, but whether such Bills originated under the previous or under the current Government, I suspect that the common strand is either that they were the worst type of provision—that which was achieved on an all-party or consensual basis, which inevitably ensures poor legislation—or, even worse, that they were rushed through without proper provision for parliamentary scrutiny.
I would be the first to accept that the Government of whom I had the honour of being a modest and minor member for some years resorted to guillotines, but it was unusual rather than routine for them to do so. Of course, that might be what the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) had in mind, but I point out that the previous Government almost always introduced such limitations after Bills had received fairly lengthy consideration in Committee. The difference is that the current Government resort to automatic guillotining before they are aware of the full extent of a Bill or its scope.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he should be speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Forth: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try not to provoke hon. Members into making interventions to which I shall have to reply. I realise that that would be most unfortunate.
My amendment seeks to change clause 1(2), which ensures that regulations introduced under section 13(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999
may include provision treating them as having come into force at the same time as that subsection.
Such regulation-making provisions are not unusual, but it is becoming all too routine for there to be a lack of provision for proper parliamentary consideration or scrutiny with regard to them. In this case, that is especially concerning, as the regulations can
include provision treating them as having come into force at the same time as that subsection.
Such phrases are starting to emerge ever more frequently. The term "deeming" is another of those phrases with which it seems we will have to become ever more familiar in badly drafted provisions. There are many such provisions, whether they contain the words "treated as having" or whatever else.

Mr. John Bercow: I, too, have considered that matter, although probably not as closely as my right hon. Friend. Do I take it from his comments that the Government intend the proposed regulations to be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative resolution procedure, so that there will be no opportunity for parliamentary debate? Would he care to reflect on the irony—nay, I understate the case, the sheer absurdity—of inviting us to presume a given in relation to regulations which have not been debated and a draft of which we have not seen?

Mr. Forth: Indeed. The Bill is silent on parliamentary scrutiny; I suspect that that is deliberate because it reflects

the Government's routine approach. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that, in the absence of explicit guidance to the contrary, I would assume that the negative resolution procedure would be used, he would be correct. In his relatively brief time here, he has achieved a mastery of such matters that few of us would attempt to emulate, so he is probably right. However, the amendment would put the matter beyond doubt. I am happy that a similar amendment has been selected for debate on another Bill, which, of course, I shall not mention. I shall try to table such an amendment every time the opportunity arises, not least to the Bill that we are now to consider on Wednesday.
One of the few ways in which we can try to hold the Government to account and properly scrutinise primary and secondary legislation is to provide for positive resolution procedure on regulations, hence my amendment, which would ensure that a draft was laid before each House and approved by resolution of both.
The word "draft" is important. I hope that it contains the procedural possibility of laying the matter before each House, and thus providing time for perusal and consideration before each House is obliged to deliberate on it. It is happenstance, but we have little opportunity to consider the Bill that is under discussion and the measure on the election imprint cock-up, which was tabled for debate later this evening. Some of it will be rushed through on Wednesday after the Prime Minister's peremptory decision to delay elections. If we had the opportunity for which the amendment provides, and drafts were available and we had time to consider them properly before both Houses of Parliament pronounced on them, we would at least have some protection. That is increasingly absent from our parliamentary process.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend, but this dog does not wish to abandon the bone yet. My right hon. Friend's demands are always timid and moderate, and I wonder whether I can stiffen his backbone on the amendment by urging him to demand a minimum of three months for consultation on the proposed regulations and a minimum of three months' notice of their required implementation.

Mr. Forth: I do not want to teach my hon. Friend to suck eggs or anything else, but one of the difficult judgments that has to be made is whether to push one's luck. One has to ascertain the likelihood of an amendment being selected for debate. Pushing too far may diminish the possibility of selection and therefore debate. If my amendment appears weak, weedy, pathetic and inadequate, I can only apologise to him and stress that it was the best that I could do while trying to ensure that it was selected. I have, happily, been successful and we have the opportunity at least to discuss the matter. However, I accept his comments. Perhaps I shall try harder next time to get a stronger, more effective amendment selected.
At least we have the opportunity of trying to persuade the Government—I accept that it may be impossible—to contemplate some parliamentary scrutiny, which they want positively to avoid in most other circumstances. I should have thought that even the Government might have realised by now that they only cause themselves more trouble if they avoid such scrutiny. It is becoming obvious that every time they seek to cut off by guillotine


proper consideration of a measure, they subsequently have to return to the matter and take up parliamentary time correcting their earlier error.
On this occasion, my objective is somewhat different. I want to bring into play the full panoply of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, even in a matter such as this. I said earlier that the Bill and the amendment were matters of moment and substance. Although the Bill is short and modest, it covers important territory and can affect individuals in the most dramatic way
My amendment seeks to provide for both Houses of Parliament to consider any regulations that might arise from the Bill, to satisfy themselves that they are as they should be. Here, the role of the two Houses of Parliament can often be quite different. Those of us who spend most of our lives in this building, and in this Chamber, understand that, because of the Government's enormous majority, proper scrutiny and accountability have been a struggle in this Parliament to put it mildly. Although my hon. Friends have worked manfully, and, in some cases, womanfully, to hold the Government to account, it is very difficult, particularly in a Standing Committee in which the Government may have 14 members and the official Opposition—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order May I once again ask the right hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to his amendment?

Mr. Forth: I certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. My amendment refers to a draft of the regulations
being laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
You do not want me to give my modest analysis of the inadequacies of the scrutiny process in Standing Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall have to deny that to myself and to the House. However, I want to emphasise the importance of proper scrutiny at the stage of introducing regulations—rather than in Standing Committee or in the introduction of primary legislation—to try to provide a safety net so that if, by some chance, proper scrutiny has not been possible in Standing Committee, we have the opportunity to pick up the pieces and provide the necessary degree of scrutiny.
That process would, nevertheless, be inadequate because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would be the first to point out if I did not—no amendments would be allowed to be made at that stage, and I regret that. That is something we have to live with. The Procedure Committee has considered from time to time whether it should be possible to table amendments when introducing regulations, but has not yet seen fit to take the matter further. We must therefore accept that, in this case, scrutiny and accountability are available only on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
If my amendment were accepted, it would still be possible for the Government to lay the draft regulations before this House—and, I believe another place—and then say, "We, the Government, want you to approve this, and if you do not, it will fall." That is often used as a kind of blackmail, in which the Government say, "If you do not accept this, nothing will happen." I would often prefer nothing to happen. I often feel happier with nothing than with something flawed, bad or undesirable. Perhaps I have not yet been able to persuade my hon. Friends of that in

a sufficient number of cases. However, in this case, I shall have to be satisfied with this degree of scrutiny and accountability, because, that is all that is procedurally available.
It is important to understand why I want both Houses to be involved in this process. I am very keen that we should always acknowledge the role of a bicameral Parliament, such as we have here. For those who argue for the so-called primacy or supremacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords, my answer these days is that Members of the House of Commons show it increasingly less respect. They are prepared to turn up less and less often, so why we constantly talk about the supremacy of this place is increasingly beyond me.
For that and other reasons, I am more and more enthusiastic about ensuring that we involve the House of Lords in such processes as often as possible. If we undertook an analysis, which you would not want me to do at this stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, we would probably find that the attendance record of Members of the other place is better than that of Members of this place. Looking round the Chamber perhaps provides a good example of that.
More importantly, I want the regulations to be approved by both Houses because we have in the other place expertise and experience that is often not available in the House. That is an important factor. Notwithstanding the fact that there are distinguished legal experts sitting on all Front Benches, even they would perhaps admit in their different ways that scrutiny by another place might provide that extra bit of added value and quality in the parliamentary process which we, even on a good day, may not be able to provide.
Parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses provides that extra dimension, which is very valuable, and I leave it to my colleagues to make their own judgment about the value of scrutiny by the House of Commons when we have a Government with such a large majority. It is for another time for us to digress and debate the relative merits of majorities of various sizes, but size does matter in this example. I hope that all Members present agree that scrutiny by the House of Lords of a Bill covering territory and issues such as these would be extremely valuable and would greatly reassure people, particularly in relation to the Legal Services Commission and access to justice.

Mr. Bercow: I understand the significance of the point that my right hon. Friend is making, but I would not want his important amendment to be subject to the grisly fate of the self-congratulation of the lawyers—I am not a lawyer and I say that as a matter of pride. Does he agree that, in addition to any consultation that might usefully take place with them, consultation with other parties, including representatives of victims' groups, could be of inestimable value?

Mr. Forth: That is true, but my hon. Friend has put a rather worrying thought in my mind. Rather uncharacteristically, I praised those on the Front Benches and they all looked appropriately modest and humble.

Mr. Bercow: They are all lawyers.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. That is why I praised them—in the context of what I was saying, it was appropriate—but my


hon. Friend has shown us the other side of the coin. He is right that, time and again, we in this House—and, I expect, those in the other place—find that the very people who scrutinise such Bills have not only the most knowledge but some professional interest which, albeit a proper one, may none the less affect their judgment.
At what point could we expect input or involvement from those we would expect to benefit from the measures in the Bill? My hon. Friend mentioned victims' groups, whose involvement may be the most appropriate, and we might think of many other such bodies. Who would represent the taxpayer here? I leave that to one side, but one can already identify what dilemmas would arise during consideration of such a matter. Of necessity, we would require a degree of expertise to be brought to bear.

Mr. Burnett: rose—

Mr. Forth: Talking of expertise, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is being very shy. He should not underplay his own contributions to legal affairs debates. Does he recall a Committee debate on conditional fee agreements in which he took part? Does he remember the points that he made?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is very kind. Were I to try to remember all the points that I have made in my brief and inglorious parliamentary career as a Government Back Bencher, a Minister and an Opposition Back Bencher, I would have to be Mr. Memory Man. Perhaps I have allowed the contributions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman to slip my memory, but I am flattered that he remembers them: that is very reassuring.
5.30 pm
I do not want to detain the House for long, but I believe that this is an important matter, to which we should give serious consideration for at least a short time. On occasions such as this, we are being asked to decide whether we trust the Government. If the Bill proceeds as it is currently worded—without my amendment—the Government will be contemplating regulations that would presumably be made under the negative resolution procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham pointed out, and therefore potentially made by default. Do we wish to allow that, or do we want the reassurance of a provision predetermining the procedure by stating that both Houses must give positive consideration and approval to the regulations?
The issue is no less important than that—and, as I have said, the fact that it is arising in connection with more and more Bills, albeit of varying sizes and importance, suggests that we may have to return to it ever more frequently, for as long as the Government insist on trying to get legislation through Parliament guillotined, with provisions such as this half-hidden in it.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends, but more particularly the Government, that the matter requires proper consideration. Perhaps, if I am lucky, the Government may even see fit to accept my amendment.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on highlighting a particularly important constitutional question that the Government have failed to recognise during their four years in office.
The Bill, which seeks to correct the so-called Access to Justice Act 1999, clearly demonstrates the problem described by my right hon. Friend: the Government's use of secondary legislation to make changes in primary legislation. I think—and I know our Government did it as well—that that is an appalling development in the modern history of our Parliament.
In the Access to Justice Act, the Lord Chancellor gave himself—or this supine Parliament gave his office—some 37 powers to make regulations. We are discussing this Bill now because the Lord Chancellor's Department made a mess of it. No doubt overburdened by the number of regulatory powers conferred by this supine Parliament, it has had to produce a Bill that, in my view, would more properly be called the Access to Justice (Cock-up)(No. 1) Bill. No doubt, if the current Parliament continues for much longer, we shall be presented with subsequent cock-up Bills—Nos. 2, 3 and 4—to deal with other parts of the Access to Justice Act that need correcting. I shall say no more about that, however: my general point is one that I have made on a number of occasions, and repetition never made a good point better.
My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important subject, which the Government continuously fail to recognise and of which any Opposition worthy of the name should continually remind the House.

Mr. Burnett: I too support the amendment, but I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) did not make one point—unless I missed it during his eloquent summary. The regulations may have retrospective effect, which makes the case for the amendment even more compelling.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is entirely correct: the amendment would substitute the affirmative for the negative resolution procedure. In other words, we would have to have a debate on every single regulation made under section 13(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, rather than giving the Opposition the opportunity to scrutinise regulations and decide for themselves whether to pray against them. That level of parliamentary scrutiny would certainly be unusual, given the type of regulations that could be anticipated in the future, and in the particular case of the regulations already contemplated under the Bill, it would be positively unwelcome.
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about scrutiny. He is fabled for his scrutiny, and I was certainly grateful for his suggestion in our debate following Second Reading that the time allocated for Committee proceedings in the programme motion was wholly inadequate. He may be aware that the Committee did not take the full 10 hours allocated: it took 18 minutes.

Mr. Forth: That is because I was not there.

Mr. Lock: That may well be true.
Generally, the affirmative procedure is considered appropriate for powers substantially affecting the provisions of Acts of Parliament, powers to impose or increase taxation or powers involving considerations of other special importance, such as powers to create new varieties of criminal offence of a serious nature. The powers to make regulations under section 13(1) of the 1999 Act do not fall into any of those categories. That section, as amended, will give power to prescribe situations in which individuals involved in criminal investigations or proceedings should receive publicly funded advice and assistance.
Hon. Members know, because we debated it during earlier stages of the Bill, that our intention is to replicate the current circumstances in which advice and assistance are available. Those circumstances are prescribed in regulations made under the negative procedure under the Legal Aid Act 1988, passed by the previous Government.
It is possible to imagine a situation in which a new procedure would be needed—for example, if changes had to be made in social security benefit levels—to ensure that advice and assistance financial limits remain in line with the changes, but those are not the sort of changes that should automatically be debated in both Houses. The negative procedure, to which the regulations will be subject, will ensure that if the regulations proposed are more controversial, there will be an opportunity for debate, should the Opposition pray against them.
In the case of this Bill, the amendment would have very serious effects. Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill and the regulations made under it are capable of retrospective effect. That was to ensure that if Royal Assent was given after the Criminal Defence Service was commenced there would be no gap in provision. The CDS has come into existence today, and clearly we have yet to receive Royal Assent for the Bill. As soon as that is given, regulations will be brought into effect that provide that advice and assistance will be available in exactly the same circumstances as under the Legal Aid Act 1988.
If we had to wait for parliamentary time to be available for two further debates, both here and in the other place, the law would remain uncertain for a considerable period, because no power would formally exist to provide advice and assistance in criminal cases. That is the lacuna that the Bill is intended to close.

Mr. Forth: The Minister may have partially answered my question already. At the beginning of his remarks, he said that he envisaged that a number of such regulations might have to be brought forward. I know that it is asking for a gift of foresight, but it would be helpful if he could tell us whether he has any idea of the number and frequency that may be involved. If the regulations were to come in a steady flow, that would be one thing; if they were to be occasional and sporadic, that would be quite another, notwithstanding his point about the need for speed of response.

Mr. Lock: I am prepared to answer that question in this way. Two types of regulations are likely to be made under section 13(1). First, there are regulations that will extend the advice and assistance to new circumstances. If, for example, the House were to pass into law the International Criminal Court Bill, so the International Criminal Court came into existence, it would be necessary to prescribe circumstances in which advice and assistance could be given to persons coming before the court.
The far more usual way in which regulations are made under section 13(1) is to reflect the financial limits that are available to prescribe who can and cannot receive assistance in these circumstances. Clearly, it would not be right for the matter to be debated by both Houses of Parliament every time that there was a financial change, because benefits are uprated annually, or however it may be.
It is not the Government's intention, save in the very unusual circumstances of the International Criminal Court, which is an example of extension in scope, to make a change to the method or substance of the way in which advice and assistance are given. On that basis, bearing in mind the situation concerning the Criminal Defence Service, which comes into effect today, and despite the right hon. Gentleman's desire for proper scrutiny, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply to the debate. Although I appreciate his point about the need for what may be frequent—he said annual—adjustments resulting from benefit upratings or changes, the difficulty is that neither the wording of the Bill as it stands nor my amendment can distinguish between regular, relatively minor, changes and occasional, rather substantial changes. He said that he thinks that it will be mostly routine annual or semi-annual adjustments that are made, but other fairly large changes could take place in the meantime.

Mr. Lock: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he felt strongly about substantial changes under the International Criminal Court Bill, it would be appropriate to pray against them and have the debates? If the changes were more routine, would it not be appropriate to allow them to go through without a debate? Is that not the precise purpose of the negative resolution procedure?

Mr. Forth: Indeed it is. I am grateful to the Minister. However, I think that the problem with his suggestion is that praying against, in my experience, tends to work almost entirely or exclusively if it is done by Front-Bench Members, and rarely if it is done by modest, humble and obscure Back Benchers. Of course, my trust in my Front-Bench colleagues is almost boundless. However, I can imagine the odd circumstance in which it might just be possible that my Front-Bench colleagues were prepared to allow something to go through unchallenged and on the nod and I might not feel entirely happy about it, so I accept the Minister's point only partially.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters. I sense that it probably is not the will of the House to have a Division on the matter at this stage. I am prepared to let it rest on the basis of the Minister's assurances and the points that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has made. On that basis, and with some reluctance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Lock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a short Bill, but an important one for anyone who is concerned with criminal justice. It will allow the Legal Services Commission to continue to fund the same level of essential legal services for those facing criminal charges and ensure that the Legal Services Commission may fund, under section 13, advice and assistance that includes advocacy. Additionally, the Bill seeks to ensure that advice and assistance are available to those who are involved in criminal proceedings rather than only to those who are involved in criminal investigations.
There was a short but constructive debate in Committee, with no amendments being moved. As the House is undoubtedly aware, on Report in the other place, the Government moved three amendments to the Bill, the combined effect of which will allow the Bill, on enactment, to have retrospective effect. When we amended the Bill to make it capable of retrospective effect, we felt that we might be erring on the side of caution. However, by the smallest margin, it has proved to be a necessary amendment. The provisions establishing the Criminal Defence Service came into force today, and I confirm to the House that regulations will be made under the Bill immediately it receives Royal Assent.
The draft of the Access to Justice Act 1999 that was originally presented to the House would not have left the lacuna. However, in attempting to respond constructively to amendments and issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government accepted various amendments. Unfortunately, during the scrutiny of those provisions, it was not appreciated that amendments that had been moved both by Opposition Members and by Labour Members would leave that small lacuna. The gap is, nevertheless, an important matter, and I should be grateful if the House would close it by allowing the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Garnier: The Bill arose from the unintended consequences of the relationship between sections 13 and 14 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The junior Minister in this place—the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock)—and the junior Minister in the other place, Lord Bach, readily acknowledged those consequences, but they have not acknowledged that this little Bill is itself a direct consequence, undoubtedly unintended, of the Government's decision in the earlier weeks of this Parliament to crash through the 1999 Act without seriously thinking about the problems that could arise.
It is of some interest that the Minister has yet again sought to attach some blame to the Opposition for the sorry state of the 1999 Act, which is the reason that we need this Bill. As I recall it, none of the amendments to the Access to Justice Bill moved in Committee by official Opposition Members were accepted by the Committee, and the only amendments that were accepted were those moved by the Government and voted through— undoubtedly without adequate understanding—by Government-supporting Members.
Therefore, if the Government are worried about the state of the 1999 Act and the need for this Bill to correct it, they have only themselves to blame. The problem

arises not least because the 1999 Act is a Christmas tree that allows the Lord Chancellor to aggregate to himself a huge and unprecedented number of powers to make secondary legislation, the effects of which we are now having to correct.
The Government fancifully called the original legislation the Access to Justice Act, but my view is that it should be called the "Denial of Access to Justice" Act, and the Bill demonstrates why. In the Legal Aid Act 1988, the initial advice and assistance available to those who are facing criminal proceedings included limited support in court. By contrast, it is unlikely that section 13 of the 1999 Act would have allowed the Legal Services Commission, via the Criminal Defence Service, to fund advocacy services in situations such as making a bail application or representing an accused person who is at risk of being imprisoned. Equally, the provision could well have inhibited the representation of someone who is at risk of being imprisoned for failure to pay a fine or obey a court order. Those are not small matters.
Indeed, the author of the error is happily with us now—I am delighted to welcome into the Chamber the Secretary of State for Defence, who, when the 1999 Act was considered in Committee, was the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. How things have changed. None the less, the mistakes have lived on after his time at that Department.
I do not wish to prolong the Government's agony by letting this debate continue unnecessarily into the evening—although I gather that even this debate will be guillotined, at 7 o'clock. Nevertheless, I do not intend to spend the next hour or so dilating—as one of our Committee Chairman used to say—on the defects of the 1999 Act, as they will shortly be corrected on Royal Assent to this Bill. It is, however, an object lesson in the proper construction and making of legislation. The Government have a vast—indeed, an unhealthily large—majority. Nine or 10 Government Members served on the Bill's Standing Committee; only one of them, the Parliamentary Secretary, spoke. The others may or may not have listened, but their Committee activity hardly constituted scrutiny. Perhaps that is unsurprising in relation to a small Bill such as this, but had they not engaged with the Access to Justice Bill Standing Committee in exactly the same way, the problem faced by the Government might not have arisen and there might have been no need for the Bill.
The official Opposition give the Bill our broad but sad support—sad in the sense that we should not be in this position, but as we are, it is right that the Bill achieves Royal Assent as quickly as possible.

Mr. Burnett: I declare that I am a lawyer, but I do not practise as such.
The Liberal Democrats have also gone along with the Bill—for want of a better of expression. However, I warn the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), that the public defender system will not be as cost-effective as the existing provision through private practitioners. Private practitioners are competitive and do not require a huge new infrastructure and the administration costs that will be spawned by the public defender system.
I have said to the House on many occasions that real independence and the perception of real independence are crucial in the administration of justice. We have always


opposed a salaried defender system because we do not believe that the state should provide the court administration, the prosecution and the defence.
I also warn the Parliamentary Secretary that the state defender system that the Government are intent on setting up will be significantly more expensive to operate than an efficient system of independent private practitioners working through the legal aid system It is regrettable that the Government are intent on continuing with the measure; nevertheless we shall reluctantly go along with it.

Mr. Forth: It is not often that one hears such half-hearted support from both sides of the House. I feel that I should say a few words, as it looks as though I shall be the only non-lawyer to have said anything about the Bill during this stage of its proceedings. On behalf of all non-lawyers everywhere. I shall make a few comments.
Given the intimate relationship—about which we are learning—of the Liberal Democrats with the Government, how is it that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), finds himself having to express such grave reservations about the thrust of the Bill and of the legislation from which it emerged? Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), while giving the measure his reluctant and half-hearted support, also felt obliged to remind himself and the House of the fact that the Bill emerged from a series of errors and probably from a failure of scrutiny—not merely of this measure but of the previous legislation. We find ourselves in a sad and sorry state.
No one wants the Bill. Everyone wishes that it was not before us. The Government have not even apologised for it, but we are getting used to that. None of us is satisfied that it will add to the sum of human well-being, but we are stuck with it. The judgment of the lawyers among us is that the measure will bring some small net benefit or will limit the damage—one or the other—so we should feel obliged to accept it.

Mr. Garnier: One of the sad aspects of this correcting Bill is that it exposes the Government's rubber-stamping of legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998. No doubt my right hon. Friend will remember that when the Access to Justice Bill was published, its cover carried a declaration from a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department that the Bill complied with the Human Rights Act. Clearly, it did not, but we were required to assume that it did because the Minister had said so. That measure will be brought back into compliance with the Human Rights Act because we are bringing access to legal aid for criminal defendants into line

with the European convention and the Act. Regardless of what one thinks of the Human Rights Act and of the convention—

Mr. Forth: Very little.

Mr. Garnier: Well, one ought to think more of it unfortunately—certainly rather more than the Government do. At last, we have brought the Access to Justice Act 1999 back into compliance with the Government's own wretched legislation.

Mr. Forth: I am tempted to say that that would almost be a reason for me not to support the Bill. I do not agree with the Human Rights Act. I have little time for the convention, which has long since passed its sell-by date and the Act is a mess and a monster that we shall all regret. However, for the sake of legislative consistency, I accept the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes. If, as he tells me, the measure will achieve the result of bringing us into compliance with the Human Rights Act—although I do not support the Act and have no interest in the human rights convention—I suppose, for that reason alone, that it is probably necessary for us to support this increasingly dreadful-looking little Bill.
All in all, none of us has any enthusiasm for the measure; we all regard it as an extremely regrettable necessity and for that reason, I suppose that we ought to let it go through. I hope that the lessons from it will have been learned, although I am not optimistic. One of these days, surely even the Labour Government, in the short time they have left to survive—although they gave themselves a little more life today—will learn that to do the job properly, to allow Parliament to do its job properly and to allow the Commons to scrutinise is not something to be avoided but to be welcomed. In the end, that is of benefit to the Government and, indeed, to the people of this country. However, I do not expect that lesson to be learned yet. It may be that the Government will have to lose an election before they are allowed to ponder those matters in opposition.

Mr. Lock: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the debate.
I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) for their support for the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough was fair. He made his usual criticisms. He said that repetition never made a good point better. I entirely agree, although as he has again demonstrated, it is capable of making a bad point worse. None the less, I am grateful for his support and that of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. I hope that means that the House will not divide on Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Armed Forces Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the expenditure of the Secretary of State in respect of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary.
The Ministry of Defence police are already inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary by invitation. Inspections occur every four years or so. As a result of amendment No. 8, which we shall discuss later, the process will be placed on a statutory basis comparable to that which applies to the inspection of Home Department police forces. That will not of itself give rise to significant additional costs. However, because a statutory duty will rest on the inspectorate, it is necessary that the House should agree to a resolution authorising that the cost be met from public funds.
I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Robert Key: The Opposition cannot carp at this money motion as it will cover a proposition put by us in Committee; and we are grateful to the Government for putting it on the Order Paper. Indeed, we are so grateful that, later on, I shall not have to move new clause 1.
Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence makes an extraordinary statement. I had not expected a money motion to be tabled at all at this stage; normally, one would expect it to occur after a Second Reading Division. The Minister says that the advice of his Department is that it is expedient to introduce such a motion. Will he answer a simple question? How much did the previous inspection cost? That would give us a clue to what is anticipated, because in the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for the last year available—1999–2000—we are specifically told that the costs of the inspectorate are funded directly by central Government and provided through the policing and crime reduction group of the Home Office and that, each year, the inspectorate receives income from two separate allocations. The day-to-day running costs are subject to a specific funding allocation, while income and capital spending are accounted for separately, and the expenditure is controlled by Government accounting rules.

Dr. Moonie: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The cost is difficult to predict, but we have made an allowance of approximately £100,000 to cover all the costs related to the forthcoming inspection.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to the Minister, but I asked him what the previous inspection cost. I am sure that that answer will be forthcoming, but I am glad that he has specified the figure of £100,000. As he has already been

able to tell us that the inspection will cost up to £100,000, I should be grateful to him if he could explain why the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary states:
Police authorities and police forces in England and Wales are not charged for any inspections: the reports of inspections of individual forces and thematic inspection reports are also issued without charge.
It continues:
The cost of undertaking all inspections is funded from the annual running cost allocation of funds. Unlike some of our partner organisations any external income generated through inspecting non-Home Office forces such as British Transport Police and Isle of Man Constabulary cannot be used to increase the running costs provision.
So what will that £100,000 be spent on, because it is clearly not going to Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary or to the Home Office? If the Minister will kindly answer those straightforward questions, I am sure that we can make progress.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister very kindly told us that no significant extra costs would be involved, but under extreme pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), he then told us that he had made an allowance of £100,000, presumably per annum—

Dr. Moonie: Per inspection.

Mr. Forth: The Minister corrects me. Perhaps we shall find out how often those inspections are expected to take place in due course, but that figure is not stated in the money resolution.
One of the great difficulties with such money resolutions is that, unlike many of the other financial matters brought before us in which either specific amounts or upper limits are specified, we tend to face wording of the kind that we are considering now. The resolution states that
it is expedient to authorise the payment … of any increase attributable to the Act … in respect of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary.
It one thing for the Minister to say in his characteristically open and honest way that he expects only £100,000 to be involved in this case, but that is not what the money resolution states. It states:
for any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money … of any increase attributable … in respect of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary.
If I were a more cynical and unbelieving chap, I might say that the money resolution, if we were to approve it, would seem to give carte blanche to the Secretary of State to spend almost any sum that he wanted
in respect of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary.
The Minister looks perplexed, so perhaps he thinks that the money resolution will allow him to spend only the £100,000 that he anticipates will be spent on inspections, but the motion does not say that. We are faced with the difficulty that, in the current circumstances, this Minister, knowing what he now knows, envisages that an inspection will cost about £100,000, but, of course, circumstances and, dare I say, Ministers can change, and this genial and


helpful Minister might not always be in charge of such matters. Indeed, this Secretary of State may not be in charge of them. So we are really being asked to say that, whoever the Secretary of State is and in whatever circumstances he finds himself, he will be authorised to pay any increase in expenditure that he sees fit in respect of the inspectors of constabulary. In effect, that is a blank cheque.
I should have been more reassured, frankly, if the money resolution had stated, "£100,000 per inspection"; or I might have been prepared to accept it if it had stated, "£150,000 per inspection", to provide some leeway and allow flexibility for any contingency I am worried about the gap between what the Minister knows—he has told us, quite openly, what he envisages—and what the wording will allow. By agreeing to such a money resolution, I wonder whether the House is doing its job properly as the custodian of taxpayers' money and as the authority that can spend, which is the role that we have developed for ourselves over the centuries.
Perhaps this is not the right occasion to consider it because the amounts involved are not that great, but I occasionally wish that the House would reject a money resolution of this kind to force the Government to introduce more specific money resolutions. That would at least give us some sort of fig leaf which would enable us to tell our constituents, the taxpayers and the voters that, yes, we are looking after their money responsibly and, no, we are not allowing the Government to get away with murder and to spend as freely as they would, no doubt, wish to do. Unfortunately, this might not be the occasion because as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has said, it appears that the Government have accepted his inexorable logic and wisdom, have altered the Bill appropriately and, therefore, have asked the House to approve the extra expenditure.
I shall gloss over the fact that my hon. Friend seems to be contributing to an increase in public expenditure. He and I can perhaps have a word about that later. Perhaps this is not the occasion on which the House should make the gesture that I believe it should make on money resolutions, but I wanted to tell the House that, at the moment, we are issuing blank cheques and, however

genial the Secretary of State and the Minister may be, I am not sure that I would trust them quite that far. So, as time unfolds, we shall have to keep an eagle-eye on the Minister to ensure that, somehow, we can hold him to his £100,000 and that there is no question of expenditure on Her Majesty's constabulary running riot as a result of this rather over-generous money resolution.

Dr. Moonie: Given the number of resolutions to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has spoken, I should have thought that he would understand their purpose. They are not intended to authorise the expenditure of specific sums; nor do they set a budget.

Mr. Forth: They should.

Dr. Moonie: No, they should not; there is another appropriate procedure for that. They are an authorisation to spend money under a particular heading when that heading is placed on a statutory basis. When the statutory basis of expenditure in the Department is changed under primary legislation, there must be a money resolution to cover it.
I do not have the figure for the cost of the old inspection because I did not imagine that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) would want to know it, so I suspect that I shall have to tell him in writing. The provision of £100,000 is for a non-statutory inspection where we meet the legitimate charges of Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. In fact, under the new statutory basis, we shall, in turn, be obliged to supply officers to carry out inspections elsewhere, so we shall not be charged for the inspections. Nevertheless, a money resolution is necessary because there is a possibility of expenditure and because there is a change to our statutory responsibility. So the £100,000 that we have talked about will not be involved, but, alas, our procedures being what they are, a money resolution is required to cover the eventuality.

Question put and agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Dr. Moonie: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th January:

Completion of remaining stages

1. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

Committee of the whole House

2. The Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, shall be considered in Committee of the whole House in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 17; Schedule 1; Clauses 18 and 19; Schedule 2; Clauses 20 to 22; Schedule 3; Clauses 23 to 29; Schedule 4; Clauses 30 to 32; Schedule 5; Clauses 33 and 34; Schedule 6; Clauses 35 and 36; Schedule 7; Clauses 37 to 40; Schedule 8; Clause 41; new Clauses; new Schedules.

3. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Nine o'clock.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Any proceedings on consideration, and proceedings on Third Reading, shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Ten o'clock.

Programming Committees

5. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

6. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
I may not get off so lightly with this motion. I should point out to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that, in relation to his question in the previous debate, the expenditure was just under £100,000.
The Bill has benefited from the close and careful scrutiny of the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline. West (Ms Squire). The Committee made full use of the two months or so available to it, taking evidence on nine occasions in addition to its deliberations on the Bill. Against that background, the time proposed for the remaining stages of the Bill seems appropriate to the number of amendments tabled—including only one from the Government, I am happy to say; all the more so given that most of the amendments address issues that have had more than their share of exposure in the Select Committee.

Mr. Quentin Davies: This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. Day after day, night after night, the Government move programming motions to attempt to tell Parliament, the legislature, how long the Executive think is appropriate for us to consider their proposed legislation. That is an appalling pretension on the part of the Executive branch of the Government, and it is unprecedented.
We have had provision for programming motions in this House for about 120 years. It was necessary to bring in those rules because of the systematic filibustering by Irish nationalists in the 1880s. However, it was always considered that such motions were exceptional, used only in response to deliberate filibustering. They were a necessary weapon in our armoury to prevent Parliament from coming to a complete standstill.
Even when I got to the House—in 1987, 100 years after the introduction of the provision to "Erskine May" and our Standing Orders—those procedures were used too frequently, in my view, by the then Conservative Government, as I remember arguing on occasion. Nevertheless, the procedures were used sparingly at that time. It was taken for granted that the Government had to have some evidence of abuse and of deliberate time wasting; for example, if a Standing Committee examining a major Bill had only managed to get through four or five clauses in 100 hours. It was only when the Government could make such a case that they came before the House with such a programming motion.
That procedure was adopted by the Labour Governments of the 1970s and the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s. In my view, even on that basis, the procedures were used too frequently by Conservative and Labour Administrations. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—who, sadly, is not in his place—arguing forcefully against the excessive use of programming motions by the then Conservative Government, and I remember supporting him in the Chamber.
There was a balance between the Executive's desire to get their business through this place and the feeling that they should be able, at least, to enact legislation for which they had an electoral mandate without being held up indefinitely, and the strong feeling of the House that it was an exceptional, dubious and problematic procedure for the Executive to use their majority to dictate to the legislature the timetable under which they were going to do their job.
I have come to know the Under-Secretary well in the past year, and he is not at all an arrogant human being; that is not his natural stance or character. However, he has been imbued with the atmosphere of the new Labour Administration. Their feeling is that if they have an army of spin doctors and cannon fodder on the Back Benches who are prepared to vote through anything at the beck and call of No. 10, Parliament, does not matter and can be steamrollered whenever required. Increasingly, legislation is simply drafted in Whitehall and enforced on this place by Ministers and the vast voting power that they have at present; I hope it will not be there for much longer.
As a result, we are at real risk of passing legislation that simply has not gone through the proper legislative process. The Under-Secretary said that, given the number of amendments, he thought that two hours was perfectly


adequate to consider the Bill. That is a pretentious and arrogant thing to say, even though he is not by temperament a pretentious or arrogant person. It is sad that someone like him should have been pressed into this procrustean mould of new Labour and come out with such a thoughtless remark—it was, contemptuous of the role of this place. It is important that we have proper time to conduct our procedures; it is far more important than the substance of any particular clause of any Bill.
There are important matters to be discussed in relation to the Bill. On the basis of the record that is before the House, we are concerned that the Secretary of State may have seriously misled this House. I will seek to raise this point later in connection with one of the amendments. It is a serious matter, and if such a serious charge is made, it is important that it be documented Such a charge must not simply be tossed off frivolously in debate; it should be supported. There must be time to read the relevant quotations—subject to the indulgence of the Chair—and the Government must have time to refute the charge, if refute it they can. I sincerely hope that they can, because the charge is an unpleasant and serious one. It is not in the interests of Parliament—or the Government—that such a charge should lie on the table without it being refuted. The Government may be denying themselves the opportunity to do that.
We have a lot of amendments tabled for discussion this afternoon and the Under-Secretary does not know how long we need to discuss them, because they are not Government amendments. The Government said that they had about four amendments and told the House of Commons that we needed two hours to deliberate. I object to that. They do not know how long we need and it is absolutely wrong to try to tell us how to do our job. We would not be doing our job, by definition, if the legislature simply did what the Executive told it.
How much more outrageous and offensive it is—to logic, as well as to the constitutional principle—of the Government to tell us how long we need to present our amendments. They do not even know what lies behind them, or the arguments that we will adduce in their support. They pretentiously and arrogantly assume that, just because they have a majority we cannot have an argument. Democracy is not based on the principle that because one side has a majority, the other side does not have an argument. Democracy is based on the principle that everybody has the right to say something, even if they are, from time to time, in the minority. They should be heard and considered.
Frankly, that fundamental principle—on which the procedures of this House have been based, which has been around for centuries, and under which we have been the wonder of the world and an inspiration to many nascent democracies around the globe—is being steadily but surely subverted.
My party will continue, in principle, to oppose this form of Executive tyranny. We must: not out of any narrow party political interest, but because it is vital that new Labour's four or five years with a crushing majority do not do permanent damage to the way in which this place does its job. That would be precisely the situation if the Conservative Opposition lay back and let the Government go ahead. We will not do that. We will use whatever means we can to make sure that the public

realise what is going on. What is going on is that we have the most arrogant of Governments and they are the most contemptuous of Parliament in historical memory.
Many parties had substantial majorities in the past; we remember the great majorities that Baroness Thatcher, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Attlee, and Asquith and Gladstone had in their day.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davies: I am delighted to mention the names of two very fine parliamentarians and statesmen who did this country great service in their day. They would not have dreamed of using their majority in this fashion; it would not have occurred to them for one moment. They would have stood at the Dispatch Box and defended their legislative proposals and expected their colleagues in government to do the same. They would not have tolerated for a moment the suggestion from a minion that, because they had a large majority, they need not bother with this place very much and could table a programme motion to foreclose debate in two hours, or an afternoon. That is the situation we have been brought to at the dawn of the 21st century by new Labour and nothing but new Labour. It should be thoroughly ashamed of itself.
The uncharacteristic silence of Government Members suggests that they probably are thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I hope that they continue to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves until they discover the consequence that must inevitably flow from exhibiting such a degree of arrogance in our ancient democracy and from treating the public and Parliament with so little respect.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am speaking in the temporary absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). He has made many speeches in similar debates over the past few weeks, so he thought it appropriate to allow me to step in and perhaps mouth his words for him. I say in plain terms that we shall not support the programme motion, and my hon. Friend has put our view of such motions on the record time and again.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that democracy meant providing the occasion for all points of view to be fairly represented. That suggests a conversion to proportional representation that I was pleased to hear. However, I wondered in all seriousness whether he could justify the view that this Government came quite where he claimed they did on the index of supreme arrogance. I refer to the previous Government, who abolished the Greater London council, introduced the poll tax and did a string of things that many people at the time thought represented the height of arrogance and indifference to democratic dissent and lawful authority.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point. It is perfectly true that previous Conservative Administrations put through controversial legislation. In retrospect, some of us are not entirely happy with some of it, but we are very proud of parts of it. Some of the legislation was extremely controversial; other
Governments in the past have put


through controversial legislation, too. The hon. Gentleman's party certainly did, and I mentioned the names of the statesmen who introduced it. Indeed, the Attlee Administration put through some momentous and extremely controversial legislation, but it never occurred to any of those Governments to foreclose parliamentary debate artificially by systematically introducing programme motions in the House. Programme motions were an exception—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down when I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) are both missing the point. The debate is about the programme motion for the Armed Forces Bill, so I should be obliged if arguments are adduced to that point.

Mr. Stunell: I certainly accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have strayed, but I thought it appropriate to comment on some of the points that were made earlier.
I return to the central issue. Programme motions and guillotines involve work in progress. Liberal Democrats are willing and eager for an attempt to be made to have legislation introduced and considered systematically and for it to become done-and-dusted law after being satisfactorily scrutinised with a full degree of accountability. We openly say that a system of programming is essential to that. However, there has been a breakdown in the system that was originally approved by a majority of the House. Pending the outcome of the work in progress—it is no secret that the Modernisation Committee is currently debating a draft report to address some of these issues—we will certainly continue to oppose programme motions.

Mr. Forth: By my calculation, the motion allows us 200 minutes to deal with the 20 discrete matters that represent your wise selection of amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That does not strike me as an inspiring start to our proceedings, because that simple calculation tells us that we have about 10 minutes to discuss each group. If the Government seriously suggest that we should give a Committee of the whole House on such an important Bill 10 minutes to consider each separate item that you, Mr. Speaker, have identified, that sums up as well as anything the contempt in which they now hold the House.
It is curious but significant that, on the very day a generous Prime Minister has given us more parliamentary time than most of us might have expected before the weekend, or at least until the formal statement made earlier today, the Government should now seek to compress our business in such an arrogant fashion. We now know that more parliamentary time stretches ahead of us than we might have dreamed of. Surely, in those circumstances, any reasonable Government would have been prepared to say that they would not press the programme motion because they acknowledged that a Committee of the whole House on a Bill of such importance should be given a proper amount of time for deliberation? Even if we thought that we would not have time to do justice to the Bill, the Government might have

been prepared, in the light of circumstances, to allow the Committee more time to deliberate on the Bill. That would have been a reasonable response.
Speculation in the press over the past 24 or 48 hours has suggested that Parliament will be embarrassed by the amount of time that we have on our hands. What are we going to do with it? I suggest straight away that the Government could withdraw this outrageous programme motion and say, "We the Government are now prepared to give the Committee a proper amount of time to consider the matters before us."
The Bill has 41 clauses and eight schedules and my hon. Friends have tabled new clauses and amendments which cover important issues. For example, amendment No. 8 deals with the functions of inspectors of constabulary, and that amendment alone would require a considerable amount of time to be properly considered by the Committee. Amendment No. 7 deals with protocols between the Ministry of Defence and the domestic police forces; even to a layman like me, who has not been involved in the detailed scrutiny of the Bill, that is patently an important issue.
In a Committee of the whole House, 500 or so Members may be present and they may all be eager to participate in the debate. If we did the arithmetic properly, we would consider not only the 20 discrete items that must be considered in 200 minutes-10 minutes for each item—but the fact that up to 500 Members may all be eager to speak. The House will readily be able to work out that 10 minutes divided by 500 does not give much time for individual Members to contribute.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) so eloquently said, we have been reduced to hearing the Government tell us that parliamentary scrutiny does not matter any more, that they can rush Bills through in a peremptory fashion, that time is no longer of any relevance, and that they can compress consideration of Bills to such an extent that proper scrutiny cannot possibly be given to matters as important as those with which the Bill deals. Even if we were to devote all the time left—the three hours from 6.30 to 9.30, when the guillotine falls on the Bill yet again—to considering the functions of inspectors of constabulary, it would not be sufficient time to enable many of my hon. Friends who have great expertise and knowledge to make significant and substantial contributions.
All in all, we have here the logical outcome of the process that even the Liberal Democrat spokesman was moved to describe as unsatisfactory. He stated, with all the vehemence that Liberal Democrats can muster, that his party would not be supporting the motion. Those are strong words from a Liberal Democrat—we had better all beware, because when the Liberal Democrats threaten not to support something, it is pretty serious. Of course, we Conservatives will actually oppose the motion.

Mr. Stunell: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Library, he will find that Liberal Democrats have a better voting record in the House than Conservatives, and that we have a very good record of voting against the Government when necessary.

Mr. Forth: I presume that they have an even better record of not supporting the Government. When the House divides, we shall see how many Liberal Democrats


are present and what they do. Perhaps afterwards the hon. Gentleman and I can compare voting records to see whose is bigger.
The motion is an extreme example of a process to which the Government hope we shall quietly become accustomed and which we shall come to accept as routine—to the extent that we eventually give up our opposition. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said, we shall not give up our opposition as long as the Government handle such matters in such a fashion and tell the House that consideration by a Committee of the whole House of a Bill of such size, complexity and importance will be allowed only a ridiculously limited time. That is not what the people of this country expect of their Parliament in its discharge of its role of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. When the general election takes place, whether it be on 7 June or at some later date, we shall draw these matters to the attention of the electorate and invite them to pass judgment.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I hope that the Minister felt some sense of shame when moving the programme motion. It was an unpleasant thing to have to do and we know that temperamentally he is not that sort of hon. Gentleman. A programme motion is intended to railroad through a measure by taking away from the Opposition the only weapon they have: time. The ability to extend debate in the hope of persuading the Government to change their course is the only weapon available to us. That is why it is crucial that every programme motion be opposed, unless there are exceptional reasons that justify the Government's belief that the Opposition are wasting time.
Let me describe how a Select Committee on an Armed Forces Bill operates. I speak as one who chaired the relevant Select Committees in 1986 and 1996. Eleven Members of Parliament are selected to serve on the Committee. On this occasion, for the first time, no one with any service experience was put on the Committee, which was packed with Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries. The Committee tends to work in an harmonious fashion—I am sure it did so on this occasion, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), whose interest in defence matters is long standing. The members of the Committee work together closely on their task, which is to consider, scrutinise and perhaps amend the pattern of discipline and the structure of the armed forces. As they do that, they take evidence from armed forces personnel. In my experience, they always develop great respect for those who work in the armed forces and the Committee tends to develop an extremely harmonious working relationship.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend believe that a consensual, harmonious, cosy Committee is necessarily the best way to produce sharp-edged scrutiny of legislation; or does he share my suspicion that, every now and then, cosy consensuality gives rise to sloppy, poor legislation?

Mr. Viggers: My right hon. Friend makes a good debating point, but in the case that I describe it is good that the members of the Committee tend to be harmonious in their desire to do their best for the armed forces and to

respect the highly taxing circumstances in which forces personnel serve. In this case, harmony promotes good legislation.
That harmony usually extends to agreeing the manner in which the programme of the Committee is to be handled. I am not aware of any previous occasion on which it has been necessary in any way to curtail discussion by a Committee of an Armed Forces Bill. Today therefore marks a first. The Government have stood on its head the practice developed over the years of harmony and agreement between the sides.
In that respect, I mean the two sides of the Committee, but on occasions it can be extremely helpful for the whole Committee to have available to it the weapon of time. I recall that, during the passage of the Armed Forces Act 1996, the Select Committee achieved consensus and harmony in its wish to prevent the then Government from implementing their proposals to change the basis on which Greenwich hospital was dealt with by the Government. The Committee wanted to express to the Government its discontent with the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with the future of that institution. I, as its Chairman, expressed the Committee's view that we were not prepared to accept the proposed legislation. The Government had to change their approach, and what emerged was a better relationship between the Government and the management of Greenwich hospital—one that has ensured both that the fabric and architecture of Greenwich hospital are retained in their present form, and that its traditions are respected by its owners. The weapon of time can be extremely valuable, whether it enables the Opposition to make representations to Government members of the Committee, or enables the Committee as a whole to make representations to the Government.
I profoundly regret the way in which the Government have sought to curtail discussion of the Bill. The current Government are arrogant: the Prime Minister rarely attends the House and Cabinet Ministers rarely attend debates. At the start of the debate on the money resolution, I saw the Secretary of State for Defence sitting in his place on the Treasury Bench. That was welcome to me because I believe that, even if they are not personally responsible for piloting it through, Ministers should be present during the passage of legislation that affects their Department. However, the right hon. Gentleman was present for no more than five minutes before disappearing, and he will probably take no further part in the passage of the Bill. That is, to my regret, typical of the Government's behaviour.
The Armed Forces Bill is, of all Bills, the one on which it should be possible for the usual channels—the Whips representing Front Benchers of all parties—to agree a reasonable pattern of debate that is not inflexible and which allows all Members of Parliament to express their point of view. This programme motion is nasty, silly and unnecessary, and I very much regret that it has been moved.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I rise having had a rather unhappy history of trying to take part in affairs on the Bill. I got a chance to speak on Second Reading, but it will not surprise hon. Members to learn that I would have been keen to be on the special Select Committee that


considered the Bill, given my experience in the armed forces and as a special adviser to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, then Secretary of State for Defence, from 1993 to 1995. I felt that I would have had a deal to contribute to the Bill.
I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that it is unnecessary to have a programme motion at this stage. It was unnecessary to have a programme motion immediately after Second Reading, when I made what I believe to be the shortest speech in the House of about five seconds before the motion ran out of time.

Dr. Julian Lewis: It was a very good speech.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Some people have remarked that it was the best speech that I have made in the House, but I am not entirely sure that they were being kind.
The point at issue is the way in which the Bill has been handled in the House, which is profoundly unsatisfactory for the armed forces. There is no great controversy between the Government and the Opposition about the detail of issues in the Bill. Excepting the major issue of whether the armed forces should be within the remit of the European convention on human rights—and if it is taken as read that they will be—a lot of what follows in the Bill does not give rise to controversy between the parties.
It is a shame that someone with my background, who wanted to serve on the Select Committee considering the Bill, was not able to do so or give details to it. I then find that the Bill, frankly, is almost a subject for experts in the House; looking round the Chamber this evening, I see the usual suspects on defence issues. It was not necessary for the Government to introduce a programme motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has made clear how little scrutiny there would be if we scrutinised the Bill clause by clause. However, I believe that, on Report, we would have had a chance for proper and detailed debates on issues raised by the Bill, driven by hon. Members on both sides of the House who take a keen and informed interest in those affairs.
That is the duty that we owe the armed forces, not driving through legislation on programme motions—both after Second Reading, to limit consideration in Select Committee and to limit the time on Report, which is a key stage for people like me. Indeed, that will be the only opportunity that I shall have to make known my concerns about the Bill. However, I despair of being listened to by the Government in an area in which I can make a positive contribution. I served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 and tabled a number of amendments. It has to be said that not a single amendment, from whatever party, was accepted by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence who took the measure through Committee. Having heard the Home Secretary make the point that he was not aware of any Bill that could not be improved by its time in Committee, it is instinctive to object to the fact that the Government see fit to deal on a programme motion with the armed forces, of all things.

Mr. Viggers: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I am not trying to flatter him. I speak the truth when I say that I served with him on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Discipline Act and was greatly impressed by his contributions, which were based on his military experience and his consideration of the measure. I very much regret that he has not been able to contribute to consideration of the Bill, and that the period available for him to do so is now limited.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
I conclude by expressing distress at the unnecessary procedure of introducing a programme motion on the Bill. It is clear that the House could have come to a perfectly adequate arrangement about the time needed to debate the issues. The programme motion demonstrates contempt, not only for the House but for the armed forces. Outside the House, people may not be too worried about the Executive treating the House with contempt, but there should be serious cause for concern among hon. Members. The matter should be brought to public attention; when it is, the Executive should pay the price.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 134.

Division No. 170]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)




Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bailey, Adrian
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Jean


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Cox, Tom


Best, Harold
Cranston, Ross


Blackman, Liz
Crausby, David


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cummings, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Browne, Desmond
Darvill, Keith


Bruden, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burgon, Colin
Davidson, Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Dawson, Hilton


Cann, Jamie
Dean, Mrs Janet


Caplin, Ivor
Denham, Rt Hon John


Casale, Roger
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Caton, Martin
Donohoe, Brian H


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Doran, Frank


Clapham, Michael
Dowd, Jim






Drew, David
Laxton, Bob


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Edwards, Huw
Love, Andrew


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAvoy, Thomas


Ennis, Jeff
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Fisher, Mark



Fitzpatrick, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Macdonald, Calum


Flint, Caroline
McDonnell, John


Flynn, Paul
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McNamara, Kevin


Galloway, George
MacShane, Denis


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McWilliam, John


Gerrard, Neil
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mallaber Judy


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden Paul (Shrewsbury)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall Jim (Leicester S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meacher Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Grogan, John
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hain, Peter
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Healey, John
Mountford, Kali


Hendrick, Mark
Mudie, George


Hepburn, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hill, Keith
O'Hara, Eddie


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, Bill


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Hope, Phil
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hopkins, Kelvin
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howells, Dr Kim
Pearson, Ian


Hoyle, Lindsay
Perham Ms Linda


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pickthali, Colin


Hurst, Alan
Pike, Peter L


Iddon, Dr Brian
Plaskitt, James


Illsley, Eric
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Jenkins, Brian
Pound, Stephen


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Radice Rt Hon Giles


Joyce, Eric
Rammell, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kelly, Ms Ruth



Kemp, Fraser
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rooken Rt Hon Jeff


Kidney, David
Rooney, Terry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rowlands, Ted


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Roy, Frank


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruane Chris


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ruddock, Joan





Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Salter, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tipping, Paddy


Savidge, Malcolm
Todd, Mark


Sedgemore, Brian
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trickett, Jon


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Truswell, Paul


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Ward, Ms Claire


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wood, Mike


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony



Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Clive Betts and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.




NOES


Amess, David
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hammond, Philip


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hancock, Mike


Beresford, Sir Paul
Harvey, Nick


Blunt, Crispin
Hawkins, Nick


Brady, Graham
Hayes, John


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Horam, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burnett, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Butterfill, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Jenkin, Bernard



Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Keetch, Paul



Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Chope, Christopher



Clappison, James
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Collins, Tim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cran, James
Leigh, Edward


Curry, Rt Hon David
Letwin, Oliver


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fallon, Michael
Loughton, Tim


Fearn, Ronnie
Luff, Peter


Flight, Howard
McCrea, Dr William


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fraser, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Maples, John


Gibb, Nick
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Gray, James
Moss, Malcolm


Green, Damian
Nicholls, Patrick






Oaten, Mark
Tapsell, Sir Peter


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Paice, James
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Townend, John


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Randall, John
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


Robathan, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wallace, Rt Hon James


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Walter, Robert


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Webb, Steve


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wells, Bowen


St Aubyn, Nick
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Sanders, Adrian
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Richard
Willis, Phil


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Owen Paterson and


Syms, Robert
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th January:

Completion of remaining stages

1. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

Committee of the whole House

2. The Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, shall be considered in Committee of the whole House in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 17; Schedule 1; Clauses 18 and 19; Schedule 2; Clauses 20 to 22; Schedule 3; Clauses 23 to 29; Schedule 4; Clauses 30 to 32; Schedule 5; Clauses 33 and 34; Schedule 6; Clauses 35 and 36; Schedule 7; Clauses 37 to 40; Schedule 8; Clause 41; new Clauses; new Schedules.

3. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Nine o'clock.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Any proceedings on consideration, and proceedings on Third Reading, shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Ten o'clock.

Programming Committees

5. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

6. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Armed Forces Hill

As considered in the Select Committee, further considered.

[Relevant documents: The Special Report from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, Session 2000–01, HC 154–I and II.]

Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO ACCESS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

7 pm

Mr. Robert Key: Mr. Haselhurst, I should be grateful if the Minister—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Not quite.

Mr. Key: Sir Alan, I should be grateful if you would forgive my impertinence in failing to recognise your status. I should be even more grateful if the Government would clarify one point in clause 6. It concerns reservations expressed by the Newspaper Society and the National Union of Journalists, who have sought clarification of the implications of the clause.
The Bill contains special provisions for access to excluded material or special procedure material. In the Select Committee, the director general of service personnel policy, Mr. Miller, stated that the point of the clause was to introduce the same I protection as applies in civilian law to such searches. The clause allows for provisions that will almost certainly be equivalent to those under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow such material to be seized. Mr. Miller thought that this was not important, as it applied only to people covered by the service discipline Acts.
Since then, however, it has become clear that people covered by the service discipline Acts can include war correspondents and journalists accompanying UK forces into the theatres of operation. In the so-called Green Book, which contains the regulations for correspondents, annexe A, entitled "Working arrangements with the media in times of emergency, tension, conflict or war", states that accredited correspondents
will be subject to service law while accompanying an operational force and while travelling to and from the operational area in service transport".
Journalists cannot be accredited, and therefore cannot enjoy the resulting privileged status, if they refuse to sign an undertaking to comply with the regulations. If they sign such an undertaking, I assume that that is a contract and that they come under the service discipline Acts. The Newspaper Society, in particular, is keen to discover whether, during the period that journalists accompany an operational force, premises used by an accredited correspondent as temporary living accommodation would constitute "relevant residential premises" under the Bill. That is an important point, which we hope the Government will clarify.
Given that members of the Ministry of Defence police have the powers and privileges of constables in any part of the United Kingdom in matters related to anything done under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State for Defence for the purposes of his Department or the Defence Council, it seems to us that in the case of a journalist under contract, the Ministry of Defence police will be able to enter "relevant residential premises".
The NUJ gave the Select Committee a great deal of evidence relating to notorious cases in which people's homes were raided, but the case against them was subsequently dropped. That is a matter of concern, and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the position.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As far as I am aware, the provisions will apply if service accommodation is involved. The clause provides for Ministry of Defence police to search service accommodation for certain materials. I should point out again that there are associated safeguards: the powers that are given will be used only in the investigation of alleged offences under the service discipline Acts. It is extremely unlikely that they would be used other than in the rarest of circumstances. As we explained earlier in the proceedings on the Bill, it does not seem right that service police should be debarred from this area of investigation, should the need arise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

POWER OF COMMANDING OFFICER TO AUTHORISE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF CERTAIN PREMISES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Key: We now know that under clause 6, a Secretary of State can enable a service policeman—who is, of course, not a judicial officer—to obtain access to excluded material or special procedure material, and that that applies to "relevant residential premises", a phrase that the Minister has clarified.
Clause 6 states that "relevant residential premises" has the same meaning as in clause 5, where we find that it means "service living accommodation" or
other premises occupied as a residence"—
which might be a hotel, for example—by
a person who is subject to service law".
That would apply to a journalist who had signed the relevant agreement with the Ministry of Defence, or
a person who is suspected of having committed while subject to service law an offence in relation to which the warrant is sought.
Clause 7 introduces a new circumstance. A journalist can come back to his own home, having finished his duties in theatre, and find that a service policeman within the chain of command from a commanding officer, without any kind of warrant and without judicial reference from a commanding officer, can enter a private home to remove journalistic material. The NUJ was extremely concerned about that, as it represents a substantial step forwards.
It seems extraordinary that, entirely within the chain of command, an officer can instruct not just a service policeman, but a service man or woman who is not necessarily a policeman or woman, to enter someone's home after that person has finished time as a journalist or a media correspondent, if it is believed that those premises contain material that might be the property of the Ministry of Defence or, as I understand it, the intellectual property of the Ministry of Defence.
If there is a belief that the security of the state is being compromised in that way by a journalist, it would be right and proper for the MOD to take appropriate action. However, that bypasses the judicial process. The instructions are given not by a judicial officer within the chain of command, but by the commanding officer of a military unit. That concerns both the NUJ and the Newspaper Society, and I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister comment on one aspect of the clause, which relates also to clause 8? Clause 7(3) states that
a person authorised under subsection (1) may seize and retain anything for which the search under this section was authorised.
The Minister will be aware of the case of Major Milos Stankovic, a former member of the Parachute Regiment who has now retired from the Army. He is not one of my constituents, but is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). The Minister will know of the anxiety that exists about the seizure of documents and other items that have not yet been returned to Major Stankovic. I know that the Government intend that procedures on judicial matters concerning the armed forces should, as far as possible, reflect the arrangements that apply to civilian life. In the light of that intention, should not there be more specific provision to ensure that where no charges are brought against an individual, it is presumed that any possessions obtained from that person through the use of a search warrant must be returned?
I realise that we shall deal with clause 8 shortly, but I should point out that it contains related provision. Clause 8(2) states:
In relation to review under this section
—the review will be authorised by a senior officer—
a judicial officer shall have such powers and duties as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.
Bearing it in mind that we are discussing clause 7, will the Minister comment on the extent to which any orders made under clause 8 might deal with the case of Major Stankovic, which is also relevant to clause 7? Of course, he might not want to speak about an individual case, especially when it is that of Major Stankovic. It would be helpful if he did so, as the matter has been aired a number of times on the Floor of the House. If he cannot provide a further explanation now, however, will he at least address the underlying principle?

Dr. Moonie: The clause does not apply to excluded and special procedure material. Subsection (1)(a) applies only when the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of clause 5(1) are satisfied. Clause 5(1)(d) imposes a condition ensuring that excluded and special procedure

material is not relevant to the offence in question. I suspect that I should leave my reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about clause 8 until we consider that clause, to ensure that we follow the correct procedures. Finally, I can make no specific comments on the case of Major Stankovic.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

REVIEW BY JUDICIAL OFFICER

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Moonie: Sticking exactly to procedure, I shall now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about this clause.
Obviously, secondary powers have been taken to make regulations governing the powers and duties of judicial officers in respect of reviews. It is certainly our intention that the actions of commanding officers in respect of initiating such reviews should be subjected to a fairly rigorous test that is properly applied. That is why the judicial officer has a role in reviewing actions.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Bill continue the existing arrangements that are in place under the current quinquennial legislation, or does it set out a new procedure? I am seeking to establish whether there has been a change in procedures relating to the seizure of documents and possessions and to the return of such items to their owners.

Dr. Moonie: The clause gives powers to the Ministry of Defence police to make searches in specific circumstances, but it does not affect existing powers. Clause 7 clarifies the action that can be taken by a commanding officer when a warrant cannot be obtained. In other words, that clause deals with circumstances in which it is urgent to ensure that the material that is sought is not spirited away. The new powers that are conferred on the MOD police are the subject of appropriate safeguards; indeed, I think that the Select Committee agreed on that. As I said, the provisions allow the Secretary of State to extend regulations governing the powers and duties of judicial officers in respect of the reviews. Currently, the powers of the service police are not set out in legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: With the leave of the Committee, we shall consider clauses 9 to 17 together.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: rose—

The Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to comment on all the clauses, or on a particular one?

Mr. Blunt: Clause 15, Sir Alan.

The Chairman: With the leave of the Committee, we shall take clauses 9 to 14 together.

Clauses 9 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

MEANING OF "SERVICE LIVING ACCOMMODATION"

Question proposed. That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Under-Secretary explain how the statement made by the Ministry of Defence a couple of weeks ago about the future provision of single living accommodation for the armed forces will affect the application of the clause? As I understand it, the Ministry is introducing a programme to ensure that all single soldiers will have en suite facilities. Obviously, it will take a long time to provide such accommodation and the programme will be expensive to implement. Indeed, it will consume rather more than the extra resources that the MOD won in real terms from the Budget. Like others in the armed forces, I hope that it will go ahead, and I know that the Secretary of State has made it a priority, although it is one that is causing discomfort in other areas of the MOD budget and in respect of other programmes.
The explanatory notes appear to suggest that the programme will have an impact on the application of the clause, as the phrase "service living accommodation" appears to apply to shared areas. If all single soldiers in the armed forces are to have their own en suite facilities, will those facilities be analogous to the family accommodation that is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill? The explanatory notes refer to a distinction in respect of family accommodation. Should single service men expect to be subject to the clause when, in due course, they have proper accommodation? If so, how will it affect them?

Dr. Moonie: It is clause 16 that defines service living accommodation. Clause 15 refers to orders and regulations in general.

Mr. Blunt: No, it is clause 15.

Dr. Moonie: In that case, it is clear that the notes from which I am working are incorrect, and I apologise. I thought that it would be easier to work from notes than from the Bill itself.
The point of the provision is to ensure that a certain amount of private space is defined as personal, irrespective of whether a person is living in single or shared accommodation. The definition is intended to ensure even in communal accommodation that a certain amount of space is allocated as personal and can be searched only when a warrant has been obtained.
I think that during our debate on clause 8, I may have spoken about "MOD police". I am always making that mistake; I should have referred to the service police.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Would a separate warrant be required to search the part of a billet shared with others that was specific to a member of the armed forces? If three other people shared the accommodation,

would they be subject to the same search warrant? Will the Minister confirm that no one could interfere with their property under the aegis of the search warrant?

Dr. Moonie: That is correct. The warrant applies only to the person under investigation.

Mr. Hancock: To their property and space?

Dr. Moonie: Yes.

Mr. Blunt: As the programme for single service men to have their own accommodation is implemented, will a warrant be required for each service man's space? In future, everyone will have their own space. On land, although not at sea, few areas will therefore be defined as communal. The number of warrants that are required for individuals will therefore increase. Has the Department considered the implications for, for example, communal searches for drugs? Will the warrants have to name a large number of individuals?

Dr. Moonie: The warrant applies to space that can be searched, not to the person. Warrants will be specific and refer either to shared or single accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it will take a long time to provide single accommodation for everyone. We hope to make a start shortly.

Mr. Hancock: I represent many service personnel, and it is important to be clear about the point. If three service men share accommodation and one is under suspicion and a warrant is obtained to search the premises, will it apply to the space occupied by all three, or simply to the part that belongs to the person who is under suspicion? If the former is the case, what protection is afforded to the other two occupants in such circumstances?

Dr. Moonie: So far as I am aware, the provision applies to the space of the person who is under investigation, and not to anyone else. Protection will exist to ensure that the rights of others are not infringed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

REQUIRED CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The schedule deals with required custodial sentences from courts martial. The notion of custodial sentences without


jury trials and established civilian court standards is offensive. On Second Reading, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces:
Why has my hon. Friend not had a more radical look at the court martial system, particularly for serious offences? What has he got against having the equivalent of a jury trial for those serious offences, moving away from other service men considering those cases?
He replied:
It is simply because I am not a radical sort of fellow."—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 898.]
Clearly, a radical review did not therefore take place. However, I believe that an overall review of the operation of the system would have been preferable to the attempts to tinker with it that the Bill proposes.
I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, to propose a committee of inquiry into the system. It suggested that civilian law standards and procedures and the Human Rights Act 1998 should form part of the inquiry. The Bill represents a missed opportunity on the court martial system. It tinkers with a fundamentally unjust system that is long past its sell-by date, and it does so without an overall perspective.
In peacetime, a defendant from the armed forces should have the same rights, including human rights, as a defendant in a civilian court. Such defendants should have a jury trial, an independent judge, the ability to choose a defence lawyer and a public hearing. That should apply especially when custodial sentences could be imposed. Trials for civilian offences should take place in a civilian, not a military, court. Other less serious matters should be subject to internal disciplinary rules and procedures, but not disciplinary courts with legal power. They should resemble employment tribunals.
In wartime, procedures should be subject to later civil review.

Mr. Hancock: I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point, but will he furnish us with evidence to show that many miscarriages of justice at tribunals or courts martial have occurred and that custodial sentences have been overturned at subsequent hearings?

Mr. Cohen: I am about to provide some evidence. When conducting research in the House of Commons Library, I found an article written by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) for the Fabian Review in March 1999, in which he said:
This reminds me that I acted judge and jury at a Court Martial while writing the pamphlet"—
I shall refer to that shortly—
and sentenced a young soldier to life for murder. He is now perhaps the only lifer in Britain who did not receive a trial by a jury of his peers. He should be the last.
That is evidence.
The Fabian Society pamphlet entitled "Arms and the Man—Renewing the armed services" was written earlier. It states:
There can be no doubt that we need an in-house disciplinary structure; but we should now question whether it should have the force of civilian law. We should also question whether it is now appropriate that soldiers charged with very serious crimes in a

peacetime context, for which a guilty verdict will lead to imprisonment in a civilian prison, should be routinely denied a jury of their peers.
Being "routinely denied" such a jury is unsatisfactory. People should not be sitting in jail without having a jury trial in serious cases.

Mr. Blunt: I have watched the operation of the civilian and military justice systems. Someone is far more likely to get a fair trial under the military than the civilian system. If the principle holds for a lesser offence, why should it not hold for the most serious offences? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there was a miscarriage of justice in the example that he gave?

Mr. Cohen: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view. Trial by a jury of peers for the most serious offences is a fundamental tenet of British civilian law. There is also an important human rights element. People might well take their cases to European Court of Human Rights and claim that their rights had been infringed by not receiving a jury trial. We shall see what happens in that respect.
7.30 pm
In the pamphlet that he wrote for the Fabians, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West talked about a legal time bomb, He was really referring to other matters, but this, too, could be a legal time bomb.

Mr. Hancock: It is important to note, when quoting a case such as the one that the hon. Gentleman has described of a service man who was tried for murder and found guilty under court martial procedures, that that service man could have been represented by civilian legal advisers, and probably was. We shall no doubt hear that that was the case. We also need to know why that case was tried under military law rather than under civilian law. Will the hon. Gentleman explain more of the background to the case?

Mr. Cohen: The basis of my argument is that cases involving serious offences should be tried under civil law and an independent judge. There are dangers in armed forces personnel trying such cases, even if they are not associated with the defendant's regiment. That is because they share a similar ethos with other commanding officers. It is important to have independent judges and public hearings. I know that most courts martial have public hearings, but they also have the ability to sit in camera. That could represent a serious abuse of a defendant's rights.

Mr. Blunt: I do not understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is drawing between serious offences and other offences. All offences in which a defendant comes before a justice system are likely to be serious if that defendant is likely to end up in prison. I am not sure, therefore, why the hon. Gentleman does not simply extend his argument to the whole of the courts martial system. Why should there be a particular cut-off point? Either the courts martial system is just or it is not. In my judgment, and that of the military as a whole, it is. The system is held in great respect and we change it at our peril. Will he pursue that point?

Mr. Cohen: The cut-off point is when someone could go to jail for an offence. That is very serious. If it is


possible that someone could go to jail, they should have the right to a jury trial and a civilian hearing. If their alleged offence did not carry a jail sentence, it would be more akin to a disciplinary matter for an employment tribunal. That could then be dealt with under military law—not by disciplinary courts but by ordinary tribunals such as those used by employers generally.

Mr. Blunt: I want to be absolutely clear that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the whole of the military justice system should be ended. Even a commanding officer, under summary justice procedure, has the capacity—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman convinces me that we are getting wildly off the point. The schedule is not about whether there should be courts martial, but about the sentences that should apply I would appreciate it if hon. Members brought their remarks back to that rather narrower point.

Mr. Cohen: I chose to speak on this schedule because it is about required custodial sentences, and I do not think that the courts martial system is appropriate for cases that carry those sentences.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how many service men and service women are currently being held in custody under the schedule?

Mr. Cohen: Clearly the gentleman referred to in the article by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West is in jail. Perhaps it is right that he should be—it almost certainly is. However, he is in jail without having had a jury trial. That is a good question to ask the Minister: how many other people are in jail without having had a jury trial? That is the aspect of this matter that I find offensive.
The Government responded to the case of Findlay v. the United Kingdom, which was a European Court of Human Rights judgment delivered in the late 1990s. In 1990, Lance-Sergeant Findlay, a service man serving in Northern Ireland, ran amok with a loaded pistol, threatening to kill himself and others. At a court martial in November 1991, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a reduction of rank and a dishonourable discharge. He appealed to the European Court, saying that various aspects of the court martial had been unfair, and that the subsequent sentencing reviews contravened article 6 of the European convention on human rights. He also stated that he had not been given a reason
for the level of sentence, and that subsequent post-hearing review procedures were largely administrative … On 21 January 1997 the ECHR held that the British court-martial system did breach Article 6 on the basis that it lacked independence and impartiality. The judgment stated:
… the applicant's fears about the independence of the court martial should be regarded as objectively justified particularly in view of the nature and extent of the Convening Officer's roles, the composition of the court martial, and its ad hoc nature.
Regarding the impartiality of the court-martial the European Court declared that:
… the tribunal must be subjectively free from personal prejudice or bias, and must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect.
The European Court also found against the system in other respects. That was a case in which someone received a custodial sentence, which is what the schedule deals

with. That was a damaging judgment, and this part of the Bill contains the Ministry of Defence's response. I think that it is a very unsatisfactory response. Basically, it proposes applying summary proceedings against officers, which is likely to prove unsatisfactory. It also proposes abolishing naval disciplinary courts—I think that all the disciplinary courts should go—and that warrant officers should be able to serve on court martial panels. However, those warrant officers would not be able to serve on cases in which the accused person was of a higher rank. That is ridiculous, and a reflection of the hierarchical, class-ridden nature of the armed forces. That is like saying that a worker cannot sit on a jury if the defendant is a manager.
The MOD's response also proposes that the Attorney-General can refer court martial decisions to an appeal court if he thinks that the sentence is unduly light. The Ministry claims that that is the same as in the present civil procedure. However, the big difference is that, in the present civil procedure, there would have been an original trial by jury before the sentence was passed. That would not be the case in a court martial.
The Ministry's response also included a proposal to exclude most court martial proceedings from the possibility of a judicial review. That is a denial of a legal right.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to hang far more on this schedule than is possible within the rules of order. He is developing a more general argument that falls outside the provisions of the schedule, and I must ask him to desist.

Mr. Cohen: I will desist, but I was trying to save the House time by not speaking to all the different amendments.
I return to the central point of the schedule, which is that it involves custodial sentences. The final response of the Ministry was that courts martial should have the power to compel the production of evidence or attendance of witnesses. That means civilian, not military, people being subject to compulsion by a military court. That is out of order.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Will he explain how he proposes to make the process more democratic when the Army has differences of rank—or is that what the hon. Gentleman calls "class-ridden"? Is he proposing to abolish those differences as well?

Mr. Cohen: I am proposing that all people, including officers, who are brought into this arrangement and who might perhaps summarily have a custodial sentence passed on them, should have the right to a jury trial in a civilian court.
The response from the Ministry of Defence to the European Court judgment on Findlay v. the United Kingdom was feeble and defensive. It lost sight of the overall perspective. The whole courts martial system is flawed because it still does not accord with civil law in lots of respects or with civil proceedings, arrangements and standards. In peacetime, the armed forces should not have a separate court system and should not be able to


send people to jail for serious offences without jury trial. In wartime, such arrangements should be subject to civil review.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman refers to peacetime and wartime. Will he explain what he perceives to be the difference between peacetime and wartime jurisdictions and court trials?

Mr. Cohen: That is an obvious difference. In wartime, there is an emergency situation. People may be at the front and commanding officers have to make decisions about men who they think are in breach of the rules and regulations. That should be the case, but there should be a review in a calmer environment—for example, back in this country. There is no such emergency in peacetime, so the civilian courts could deal with those cases.
The Bill as it applies to courts martial is a shallow response to the ECHR judgment. The procedure was rushed through with little criticism being made and we are stuck with it for five years. We are not even doing the groundwork to have it changed when we consider the next Bill, but, meanwhile, we could face a legal time bomb and perhaps even compensation claims under that ECHR ruling.
I repeat my view of sensible reform: we should abolish the courts martial system in peacetime; all serious cases should go to a civil court and there should be a right to jury trial; there should be transparent and fair disciplinary procedures, not courts, in all other cases; and defendants should have the right to representation. In wartime, there should be a civil review after the event. That is my point of view, which I am happy to put to the Committee.

Mr. Hancock: I am mindful of your look across the Chamber, Sir Alan. I shall bear in mind the time available.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) made a case for considering over the next five years how courts martial operate and his final point was the most valid of all. He said that no groundwork is being done to address any injustices that occur. I have attended a number of courts martial in and around my constituency because my constituents have been involved, but also out of interest due to other involvements. I have seen them operate.
I also represent, like other hon. Members, a significant number of service personnel at all levels, but I have yet to hear one complain about the procedures adopted once the process has started. Many thought that the processes that led to arrest and laying charges were deficient—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is picking up the broadest of the points made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), which I suggested he should not make. I allowed some latitude, because he claimed that he was stringing together one or two different points that went wide of the schedule. I understand that he did that for the convenience of the Committee, but I cannot offer the same tolerance to other Members to enable them to pursue the debate on such broad terms.

Mr. Hancock: I shall do my utmost to focus my comments on the matter before us.
There is no compelling evidence to show that the system that we are considering is a bad one, although changes will need to be made over time. The review of armed forces discipline as a whole will mature over the next three or four years and we must take into account how European legislation will interact with it, so the next time that the House discusses the issue, significant changes will undoubtedly be made to the way that the system works. I do not believe that courts martial offer a disservice to armed forces personnel, especially when custodial sentences arise from their decisions, because all defendants have the right of appeal and the right to have outside legal opinion on their side if they so choose.

Mr. Blunt: I shall abide by your injunction, Sir Alan, and refer to the detail of the schedule.
To pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), he omitted to mention a matter that is pertinent to considerations under section 70 of the Army Act 1955. Section 70 takes the Act into civil procedure and, of course, there is an appeal mechanism that ends, effectively, at the Courts-Martial Appeal Court and then the House of Lords. I share the views of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and, whatever the mechanism about which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead is concerned, the system is safe and just and there is an appeal route.
Although the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the wider courts martial system are perfectly reasonable in terms of other European countries, the schedule should be accepted as it stands. As he suggests, the situation that he described pretty much applies in Germany, where all such offenders who commit civil offences are dealt with under the civil law, not a provision similar to the 1955 Act or the schedule.
The schedule should stand part of the Bill precisely because of the operational experience of the British Army and the inability to differentiate between peace and war, which was displayed by the hon. Gentleman and which shows why our system is robust. I draw the Committee's attention to the example that he and the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, witnessed during a Defence Committee visit to Kosovo in November 1999.
The right hon. Gentleman may recall the circumstances in which soldiers from a British unit serving in Kosovo some six months after the occupation by NATO forces conducted what appeared, on the face of it, to be the robbery of a store in Pristina. We do not know what happened subsequently under the justice system, but they had apparently committed a serious offence. Is the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead seriously suggesting that we should have set up a civil trial in the United Kingdom and flown the jury and everyone else out there so that they could see the premises? Should we have had proceedings to-ing and fro-ing between the UK and Kosovo? That would have been wholly inappropriate in such circumstances and the example shows that there is no neat dividing line between peace and war for our armed forces. That is why we need the schedule.

Dr. Moonie: We think about the courts martial system very carefully whenever such Bills are considered and at other times. We are well aware that the system that we


apply to our armed forces is different from that which we apply to the civilian population, but I happen to believe that it is pretty fair and that the safeguards that we built into the Bill last year have made it still fairer. That, surely, is the object of the exercise. The truth should be discovered and discovered in a fair way. Although I fully appreciate the emotional and intellectual attachment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) to the jury system, I cannot say that I particularly share it. The system has served us well for many years. Other systems serve other countries equally well, or, some might argue, better.
I want to make some specific points about courts martial. They are held in public and are therefore open to public scrutiny. Defendants choose their own lawyers. An appeal against court martial findings can be made to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which is made up of civilian judges. With regard to overseas offences, certain very serious offences committed in the United Kingdom, such as murder and rape, must be tried by a civil court, but that court cannot deal with offences committed abroad.
One purpose of trying very serious offences committed abroad by means of court martial is to safeguard service personnel from local law, which may not be governed by the European convention. Sierra Leone provides an example of that. The schedule would bring all disciplinary offences and trials within the provisions of the convention.
We take many considerations into account in drawing up proposals to be included in armed forces Bills. As I have said, we certainly take account of the scope for bringing court martial procedures more into line with the corresponding procedures in civil courts, without affecting the principles that apply. In this Bill, for example, we have allowed for the possibility of review of unduly lenient sentences, for costs orders, and for the possibility of bail following appeal.
We propose those changes because they will benefit the operation of the system, and make it fairer. They have not been dreamt up in isolation; they reflect provisions that already operate in the civilian system. This is part of a long-standing policy of keeping in step with the civilian criminal justice arrangements, where it is sensible and practical to do so.

Mr. Key: During his time in the Ministry of Defence, has the Minister had time to attend a court martial?

Dr. Moonie: No, the Minister has not, although I have been able to review the written proceedings of several. It would be quite a pleasant way of spending an afternoon—it would certainly be informative—but so far I have not had the time.
As for the Human Rights Act 1998, we have made many changes. We have brought procedures into line with the European convention on human rights. We have removed any apparent influence of the chain of command over the administration and conduct of courts martial. The European Court of Human Rights has recognised our actions, and, in the judgment on the Findlay case, noted the changes that we have made with satisfaction, saying that the United Kingdom authorities had made changes to the court martial system with a view to ensuring the observance of their convention commitments.
The Bill itself has been certified by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on the basis of legal advice, as being compatible with convention rights. That means

not just that specific proposals in the Bill are compatible, but that the three service discipline Acts that will remain in force under it are as well. Ensuring that that happens has meant checking that all our procedures are compatible with the convention. Most of them already were: after all, we signed the convention nearly 50 years ago.
We are not complacent; we are always prepared to review legislation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead would be very surprised if I said that I agreed with the principle that he is trying to apply, but I certainly agree with his aim, which is to make the system as compatible as possible with the civil disciplinary system, and as fair, open and transparent as possible.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Government may think that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, but I wonder whether it has been subjected to scrutiny in connection with the charter of fundamental rights signed by the Government in Nice.

Dr. Moonie: I do not think that that was necessary. The Bill complies with the law as we have to observe it, and it will be a better Act as a result.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

COSTS AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ETC.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Key: Clause 27 deals with costs awarded against legal representatives. It provides that, in any proceedings, one of the courts listed may disallow, or order the legal or other representative to meet, the whole of any wasted costs. It defines "wasted costs" as costs incurred by a party
as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative or any employee of a representative".
This is a serious issue. It is hard enough for those of us who are not lawyers to cope with detailed legislation of this kind in any event. The Select Committee considering the Bill received some interesting evidence in the form of a memorandum from Professor G. R. Rubin, who, in commenting on changes in military law, pointed out that some would argue that there was an obscure or hidden military law agenda.
That is why I am interested in a discussion of sins of omission in relation to clause 27. Such sins may be committed by military documents, such as the various provost manuals, which have a restricted classification. They prescribe, among other things, legal procedures for the exercise of constabulary power, or whether the Army Commissioning Regulations 1999—which derive from royal prerogative, as does much military law—should continue to be classified.
That was an interesting proposition, which led me to table a parliamentary question on 2 February asking the Secretary of State to place in the Library copies of the documents listed by Professor Rubin—the unit folder


entitled "Military Custody and Summary Dealing System", the provost manuals, the Army Commissioning Regulations 1999, the military secretary's guide to officers' confidential reports, Army form AF B9926 and the Army general and administrative instructions, volume 5, instruction No. 6.
That seemed quite reasonable, and I had a very reasonable reply from the Minister for the Armed Forces, who said that copies would be placed in the Library.
When the Select Committee heard evidence from the Secretary of State on 7 March, I raised the matter with him. I pointed out that by that date, more than a month after the tabling of my question, the Library had three times requested the parliamentary branch of the Ministry of Defence to put the papers in the House, and that three times the request had been refused. The Secretary of State replied to my question—it is question 1131, on page 165 of the Select Committee report—by saying, "I will." I said, "Thank you."
In anticipation of tonight's proceedings, I returned to the Library. I asked what had happened to the manuals. On 28 March, I received a letter from the Library that told me:
I contacted the Parliamentary Clerk's office today and the official told me that these documents are classified. There will therefore be a delay of at least a couple of weeks while versions are approved for placing in the Library. As soon as we receive the manuals, we will contact you again. I hope that this is helpful.
It was very helpful indeed, and I am grateful to the Library; but what a palaver. The Minister of State says yes. The parliamentary branch countermands that, and says that the documents are classified. The Secretary of State then says yes, and nothing happens, except that the Library is again refused permission.
Someone should get a grip of the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to achieve more than either the Minister of State or the Secretary of State, and I should be grateful if he would do so now.

Mr. Blunt: It appears from clause 27(3)(b) that the regulations made by the Secretary of State under clause 26 can be made against prosecuting officers
appointed under section 83C of either of the 1955 Acts or under section 52J of the 1957 Act".
Having seen the Army legal corps in action, I feel that the clause might prove rather expensive for the MOD. In my experience, the corps contained many inexperienced lawyers who were chucked in at the deep end. While acting as an assistant prosecuting officer, I sat alongside one when he was a prosecuting officer, and I am slightly worried that the conduct of the young captain beside me might have led me, as well as the prosecuting officer, to collect a bill under this legislation.
The prosecution was perfectly well prepared by the regiment, and the case seemed clear-cut, as it related to someone stealing a fellow soldier's bank card—he knew the number—and emptying his account on five separate occasions, but it was conducted so badly by the prosecuting officer that, halfway through the proceedings, the defence moved no case to answer, whereupon the young captain conducting the case for the Army legal corps burst into tears and had to be taken away to another room, with a rather aggressive judge advocate taking part.
8 pm
In such circumstances, with the case collapsing because of the incompetence of the prosecuting officer—in my experience, regrettably, not an uncommon occurrence—the defence could very properly have moved for costs. Regardless of whether the defence is funded privately or through legal aid, the prosecution could surely be liable for costs under this part of the Bill.
If the prosecution is found liable for costs, will a bill from the Ministry Defence, which funds the prosecution, go to the legal aid budget and/or the individual? What is the position of the poor, hapless officer at regimental duty, who is not a lawyer—this is what happened to me—but is the assistant prosecuting officer?

Mr. Hancock: If prosecution cases are not prepared properly and the officer presenting the case is incompetent, surely there should be redress and the defendant should be able to claim costs. That will surely prove an advantage to the court martial system, because people will have to be better prepared, and better able to conduct themselves, in future.

Mr. Blunt: I agree. It is perfectly proper to expect the Army legal corps and other armed forces legal services to operate to a proper standard, but they often have difficulty in recruiting lawyers of sufficient ability to make the system fly. The system is skewed in favour of the defence because of service lawyers' limited resources. At least, that was true in my time—I am prepared to accept that things may have changed in the past dozen years. Have the consequences in terms of the cost to the Ministry been thought about? Will the Ministry have to pay the legal aid fund, or individuals funding their own defence, out of MOD funds, as it properly should do?

Mr. Hancock: I see nothing wrong with what is being proposed. If the Ministry of Defence ends up having to pay a large sum because of the incompetence of prosecutions, so be it. That is one reason why it should get its legal services in good order. When evidence was given to the Defence Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, several questions were asked about the calibre of lawyers recruited to the armed forces and we were assured that it was no longer a problem, that young lawyers who wanted a future in the military were being recruited in sufficient numbers and that senior officers were content that they were in the process of developing sufficiently robust legal services.
We were told that proper advice would be given to commanding officers about how courts martial or other hearings should be conducted. I am sure that that confidence was based on sound information. We were assured that sufficient resources would be put into armed forces legal services. Unless the Minister is not prepared to repeat those undertakings, I see nothing wrong with the clause, but it is a bit rich for the Ministry of Defence to suggest that it has a backstop on the compensation that will be paid if we get it wrong. It should clearly start from the premise that it is not going to prosecute anyone unless there is a good chance of success and it is totally confident that the prosecution team is sufficiently robust to present the case properly. Whether the defence is up to the job is another matter.

Dr. Moonie: On the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I have no idea what is holding matters up, but I will ensure that the logjam is broken as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) should accept that the Army legal services have improved considerably since his day. They provide a high standard of service. The Army prosecuting authority, which has been set up since his time, has further increased the competence with which prosecutions are conducted.
It may seem anomalous to award costs if service officers are conducting both prosecution and defence, but the point is that that is not always the case, and in order to be equitable, whichever side causes an irresponsible increase in costs should be liable for it. That is perfectly proper. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that his point about funding is accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION

Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 31, page 32, line 11, after "operation", insert—
'except in matters relating to a serious crime or police raid;'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 32, line 20, after "operation", insert—

'except in matters relating to a serious crime or police raid;'.

Mr. Key: I had better start by explaining what I mean by "serious". The matter is defined in the Supreme Court Act 1981, as amended by a practice direction from the High Court. I mean classes 1 and 2 out of the standard four classes. Class 1 offences are misprision of treason and treason felony; murder; genocide; torture, hostage taking and offences under the War Crimes Act 1991; an offence under the Official Secrets Acts; and soliciting, incitement, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of those offences. Class 2 offences are manslaughter; infanticide; child destruction; abortion; rape; sexual intercourse with a girl under 13; incest with a girl under 13; sedition; an offence under section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957; mutiny; piracy, and soliciting, incitement, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above offences. That is what I mean by "serious".
I am a survivor of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. As we progressed through that Bill, Ministers of the day made it clear that the Ministry of Defence police force was, on that occasion, being given proper constabulary powers. It was being given a clarity of jurisdiction, with which we all agreed. The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), repeatedly pointed out that the sort of crimes that would be handled by the Ministry of Defence police would be of a minor nature. They would certainly not be serious crimes of the sort that I have described. Further more, they might be

investigated by the Ministry of Defence police by arrangement with the Home Office constabulary concerned. It would only be at the invitation of those Home Office police forces that the Ministry of Defence police would handle such crimes.
It was never envisaged that the Ministry of Defence police would suffer the mission creep, as the National Union of Journalists and others have called it, that we have seen. That is in no way to denigrate the Ministry of Defence police, whom I do not think have had a fair deal over the past 15 years or more. They are a very distinguished and ancient police force, going back to the time of Samuel Pepys. This House has gradually increased the force's powers but every now and again it gets a bit out of kilter and the House addresses the issue once again. That is why we see these clauses tacked on to the Armed Forces Bill. This is quite a modest Armed Forces Bill compared with the last piece of legislation, which was a veritable Christmas tree of differing and widely disparate issues. Nevertheless, these clauses have been tacked on.
In the Select Committee, we challenged the Ministers, the chief constable and the deputy chief constables about what had happened since that nice, simple time in 1987 when everything had seemed so clear. On question 765 on 6 February, Mr. Comben, the deputy chief constable, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall):
You would agree presumably that, when it was first set up, it was envisaged that the MDP would be for minor offences?
Mr. Comben, to paraphrase him, said yes. He said later:
In a microcosm, that is what has happened to the MDP. It has got more experience; it has become more effective; it has more technical equipment and it can now investigate a range of offences that it could not have done in the early days prior to 1987. That has happened in all policing, and thank goodness it has.
That is fine, but once again the Ministry of Defence police have got ahead of themselves. That is why I will be arguing that it may have been inappropriate for these clauses to be tagged on to this Bill.
The outgoing chief constable said in his address to the Defence Police Federation national conference at the end of last year that it was all well and good having this recognition, but that it counted for absolutely nothing if the police force was not recognised by the customer. He said that those officers must be seen to be delivering a top quality service, no matter what that service might be. He referred to a number of CID cases. He reported that the CID of the MDP had investigated 30 rape cases—the previous year the figure had been 16.
We heard a lot of evidence in the course of the special Select Committee, not just about rape but murder. There was genuine concern among the Home Office constabulary forces, and genuine worry on the part of the Police Federation of Home Office constabularies at this mission creep.
There was a stark difference in the evidence of the deputy chief constable of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland who addressed us and the chief constable of Suffolk who addressed us on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That struck members of the special Select Committee quite forcefully.
8.15 pm
I am trying to clarify, by these amendments, just how far we think that the Ministry of Defence police should be going. It matters to the clients and the public that they know what a Ministry of Defence policeman is. He is in a police uniform; we have been reassured that he or she has superb training, and there is no doubt that they have to meet the same targets as the Home Office police. However, it is important that as the Ministry of Defence police evolve—for evolve they will—we should be clear about what they are seeking to do.
From the Bill's Second Reading onwards, we have been assured that the Ministry of Defence police will operate outside the wire only in a way that will be approved by the chief constable of the local Home Office constabulary. I say "approved by" because that might happen in two ways. It can happen either by the invitation of the chief constable or because of a standing agreement at a high level—a phrase that has been often used during the Bill's passage—between the Ministry of Defence police chief constable and the chief constable of the local force. We will come back to those protocols later.
It is very important to clarify what is meant. That is why these straightforward amendments would insert the words:
except in matters relating to a serious crime or police raid".
In that way, everybody knows exactly what is happening. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively and reassure us that this is not happening simply by accident but that there is a deliberate policy behind it.

Mr. Keetch: This is the crux of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has said, the special Select Committee spent a great deal of time discussing it. I am delighted to see the Chairman and other members of the Select Committee here tonight.
The concern that we have expressed on a number of occasions is that there has been, as the hon. Member for Salisbury said, a degree of mission creep in what the MDP have been doing. We have heard conclusive evidence from journalists, from Tony Geraghty and Gill Linscott, of previous actions that the MDP have already undertaken. We have heard of concern about the MDP's existing powers. Therefore, if we are to accept that there should be an extension of the MDP's jurisdiction, the House should be absolutely sure that the limitations placed upon it are right.
I support what the hon. Member for Salisbury said about the crimes that the MDP will be investigating. In our Committee, the Minister made it clear that he did not believe that the MDP should investigate murder, rape, attempted murder, attempted rape, and so on. He believed that there should be a way in which such offences should automatically be offered to the local county constabulary for it to investigate. I should be interested to hear whether he says that now and how he suggests that that should be done.
I should also be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the report of the Armed Forces Bill Committee. We said:
We believe that there is a case for giving MDP officers greater powers".
We must remember that these officers are dressed like civilian police. If they are going about their duty and they see a crime being committed, of course they should

intervene and come to the support of the civil powers. They will also want to be involved in assisting at floods and other such incidents. However, we were right to say in the Committee:
we would be completely opposed to the MDP actively seeking to increase its involvement in general policing duties which are the proper responsibility of local police forces.
There has been a consistent train of thought, throughout the evidence that was taken, that the MDP are seeking to extend their powers because they want to justify their existence. Indeed, when we were in Cyprus, members of the joint Cyprus military police force voiced their concern that the MDP somehow wanted to extend their powers on to their turf. This is the key point of the Bill.

Mr. Hancock: I am sure that the whole House is interested to hear that there is a turf war between MOD police and other police forces. However, that is not the important point. My hon. Friend suggests that the Select Committee that considered the Bill wanted to give more powers to the MOD police, but he did not say what those powers are. Most of the powers that he mentioned are already available to them. I should like to know what powers he would like to give them.

Mr. Keetch: The Committee did not suggest that the MDP should be given more powers. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend has read our report and that he will be aware not only of our concerns about their current powers, but of the way in which they should be held to account—although I am sure that we shall deal with that matter later. In this debate, however, the Minister must tell the House which MDP powers will be extended by the Bill. Additionally, which crimes that the MDP may want to investigate will be transferred to local police forces? As the hon. Member for Salisbury rightly said, those issues are the crux of the Bill.

Mr. Bruce George: My colleague the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned that he could be considered as an old-timer because he served on the Committee that considered the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. I also served on that Committee, but it is a long time since that Committee reported and the law was subsequently changed. I think that it would be ludicrous to say that legislation that the House passed in 1987 has to be operational today.
I have a good connection—not a financial one—with the Ministry of Defence police, and I have an even closer connection—again, not a financial one—with the Defence Police Federation. I first took an interest in the MOD police when, quite accidentally, the Defence Committee ambushed the MOD and the MOD police in an inquiry that we conducted on physical security at military installations. I have followed the MOD police ever since.
In that time, I have seen much criticism of the MOD police, ranging from genuine criticism to truly paranoid comments. A tendency to make the latter type of comment is very strong in the media. Quite naturally, anyone whose collar has been held by an MOD policeman—and there are quite a few such people—feels very irritated by the MOD police, especially if, as in Tony Geraghty's case, they did not proceed with the matter.
There is nothing unique about a police force messing up big time or small time. I come from the west midlands, where, historically, our police force has failed to arrest


the right people. Regrettably, in the past, it has also had a reputation for being less than scrupulous in adhering to the law of the land and the principles of policing. However, although our police force has faced enormous criticism for screwing up cases, no one has said that its powers should be changed. In the 1970s, and post-Lawrence, the Metropolitan police have also been thought to have failed in many ways. However, no one is suggesting that their powers should be curtailed to punish them for those failures.
As I said, some people are paranoid in addressing the issue. Conversely, some people want to chip away at the margins of the issue. My good friend the hon. Member for Salisbury falls into the latter camp. He is not quite certain; he is influenced equally by the MOD police who abound in his constituency and by the Home Department police forces. His situation is symbolised by the regimental cap badge showing that the regiment faces both ways. I cannot remember which regiment that is—

Mr. Blunt: It is the Gloucesters.

Mr. George: Yes. I think that the Gloucesters should give the hon. Member for Salisbury one of their cap badges and make him an honorary member.
The MOD police have evolved. When the Committee conducted its inquiry into the matter 13 years ago, and when I did the same 20 years ago, it had not been long since the MOD police had had to deal with the 1971 reforms, and some of the MOD-plod image remained. However, very unfairly, that image has persisted. The MOD police officers are a very professional force. ACPO and individual coppers are very ambivalent towards them, and hon. Members are ambivalent or hostile towards them. The media are either very unhappy or very angry with them. All that undermines the efficacy of the MOD police.
I think that the time has come to expand the MOD police's range of powers. However, I was not a member of the Select Committee considering the Bill—although, unlike the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), I was not kept off the Committee. It seems to me that the Opposition kept him off that Committee. The Government did not keep me off the Committee; I did not volunteer to serve on it. However, I gave evidence to it, partly because Committee members had forgiven me for being so obstreperous to them a few weeks earlier.
I also certainly did not get rid of the hon. Member for Reigate from the Defence Committee. I think that that was a decision by the Opposition rather than by my Committee. Therefore, I do not want him to become paranoid. He is not a member of the Defence Committee, but is considering very important issues such as canals, walking in cities and cemeteries. I am sure, however, that he likes that much less than serving on the Defence Committee.

Mr. Blunt: I was replaced on the Defence Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who is extremely experienced on these matters, and I am sure that the Committee has done extremely well, in my absence, with his assistance. I fear that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has forgotten that, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I asked him to sign my manuscript amendment nominating

me to the Standing Committee considering the Bill. As the Government had nominated two Ministers and a Whip to the Committee, the Opposition nominated two shadow Ministers and a Whip, leaving no place for an Opposition Back Bencher on the Committee.

Mr. George: As I had caused havoc by moving my own manuscript amendment, I was not in a strong position to endorse someone else's.
The Bill seeks slightly to extend the powers of the MOD police. The change is not earth-shattering, but recognises the changes in the professionalism of the MOD police and the environment in which they work. Their numbers have declined and they are now more mobile. They do less static guarding. The world of policing also has changed around them—with greater involvement by the private security industry, the MOD guard service, the military provost guard service and the growth of List "X" companies.
The MOD police have also undergone the changes occasioned by the 1987 Act. Additionally, there is a new range of threats to counter, including fraud, terrorism and environmental offences. They are now also a police agency. I think that the time has come for them to have a modest increase in their powers.
In 13 years from now—the hon. Member for Salisbury may still an hon. Member, but I doubt that I shall be—the House may seek further to extend the MOD police's powers. However, hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot quietly say, "The MOD police are still MOD plods. They are not really up to the competence of some of the mainstream police forces", while criticising fairly modest proposals to increase their powers. Such criticisms are voiced despite the fact that they are attempting to become more professional and help out Home Department police forces in certain circumstances. Committee members were given sufficient evidence to justify why the MOD police deserve to have a marginal increase in their powers.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I had no intention of intervening during this debate, but as one of my constituents is currently dying of cancer because the Ministry of Defence police grossly exceeded their powers—and have admitted doing so—when they raided his office and, in effect, by their act rendered him bankrupt, I feel rather dismayed. The name of my constituent is Mr. Crawley of Chesswood Floors.

Mr. George: I am desperately sorry. However, just because there is a posse of murderers in south London and the Metropolitan police did not use their powers and were proved to be incompetent, that does not mean that we get really angry with them. We cannot isolate a few cases and say that just because people fouled up in those, they should be penalised by being stuck with the powers that they had in 1987.
The world is changing. The world of policing is changing. If the Defence Committee had survived for another 12 months, we should have conducted a major inquiry into policing and security in the Ministry of Defence to show those aspects that should and should not interlock, and where powers, competence and training should evolve further.
In conclusion, the MOD police have definitely improved. They want a little more encouragement. Hon. Members shuffle around and issue statements on the one hand proclaiming how much they adore the MOD police while on the other saying, in effect, that they are not up to handling the rather limited changes to their powers that any reasonable person should support. Those hon. Members are saying to the MOD police, in effect, "You're not up to it. You should be stuck with the powers you had in 1987. You should not have evolved. You're a second-class police force. You are not a professional police force and you should stay that way."
That would send the wrong message. I hope that the Minister will send members of the MOD police in Salisbury, Wiltshire and Herefordshire copies of the speeches and check whether they had consulted hon. Members as to whether those powers should remain ossified or should evolve.

Mr. Blunt: I am tempted to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) down the track on the merits of the MOD police in toto, but that course might be better left until the debate on clause stand part. I am grateful to you, Mrs. Heal, for your indication in that respect. I shall address myself to amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and will try to catch your eye during clause stand part to deal with some of his points.
To put the matter in perspective, I share some of the concerns expressed about the MOD police. However, I note that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends provides that the MOD police can go to the assistance of other police forces
except in matters relating to a serious crime or police raid.
I do not share the concerns of my hon. Friends on that matter because if such an action takes place at the request of another police force, which wants the assistance of the MOD police, something as specific as a police raid is exactly when the MOD police might be required to supply numbers, under the direction of the other police force.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) replies to the debate, I should be grateful if he could explain that point. Perhaps I have misunderstood the effect of the amendments. Although I have concerns about the MOD police, it seems to me that the effect of the amendments would be that the MOD police could not operate at the request of other forces—presumably under their direction. I look forward to the remarks of my hon. Friend and the Minister.

Mr. Hancock: The Armed Forces Bill Committee report contains some interesting comments. Paragraph 39 refers to the extension of powers when the MOD police
are attempting to deal with emergency situations which they come across in fulfilling their normal duties. However, we would be completely opposed to the MDP actively seeking to increase its involvement in general policing duties which are the proper responsibility of local police forces.
There is a slight contradiction; the Bill's explanatory notes point out that MOD officers now have greater contact with the public than before. They are far more mobile and may run into various incidents on the way to and from different establishments.
In the greater Portsmouth area, between a dozen and 20 establishments are serviced by the MOD police either full time or in a visiting capacity by a mobile unit. Those police officers move extensively around our part of south Hampshire. For example, Whale island, which has an MOD police presence, is close to the ferry port. In the past, several legal, peaceful demonstrations against the transport and export of live animals through our ferry port have entailed the involvement of the civil police, and occasionally the roads in and around the ferry port, including the access road to Whale island, have been blocked. Perhaps the extension would mean that the MOD police would have the right to be involved in such demonstrations, but they are very difficult matters for them to become involved in.
Likewise, MOD police moving from one establishment in the south of Portsmouth to another at the eastern end of Portsmouth would travel along the seafront. On Friday or Saturday nights, it would not be uncommon to see several police vehicles parked opposite South Parade pier in Portsmouth, and probably at least one patrol wagon from the naval provost. If a significant incident were to occur outside one of the clubs on another part of the seafront while an MOD police patrol was passing, the MOD police might deem it their responsibility to intervene and stop a fight or an affray.
I should be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the extension would give the MOD police the right to take part in preventing such a disturbance from gathering strength, and whether they would have proper protection under the law and in their job descriptions to allow them to act as policemen. Is it not important that, where a heavy concentration of MOD police is found, the civilian population should be made fully aware of what the extension of MOD police rights involves? For example, people should know when MOD policemen have the right to follow them to their homes and to take action inside or outside their homes, once having seen them commit an offence.
I am full of admiration for the MOD police. I was particularly inspired by their conduct when a young MOD constable at the main gate of Portsmouth dockyard made a very senior Royal Marine general very angry by making him comply with the regulations in operation for other staff going in and out of the naval base. The MOD police stuck to their line, and I am glad that they were supported, but that very disgruntled senior general in the Royal Marines retired from the service, for ever carrying a grudge against the MOD police. Anyone who wants to insist that a general toe the same line as everyone else has my support, and their willingness to stand in the front line and regularly confront such situations involves a pretty worthwhile job—ensuring that rank carries no sway with the police.
As the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said, the MOD police have been heavily criticised in the past, sometimes cynically and for motives not wholly germane to the argument being pursued at the time. I should like to think that the House will be fair to the MOD police. I am not against their powers being extended, but what those extensions involve, when they can be brought into operation, and what rights the civilian population have if they are confronted by an MOD policemen, alone or with another officer, must all be made clear. It will be no good if the powers are extended but the bulk of the civilian population are totally ignorant of their rights.
Few people who speed on the motorways in and around south Hampshire would slow down when they saw an MOD police car behind them. The implication is that the MOD police might think it their duty to pull those people over and at least caution them, but will they have the power to do so? When did the Select Committee think that the emergency would arise in which the MOD police could exercise their powers along the same lines as the civilian police? I can guess what those circumstances might be, but I should be interested if the Minister or the Chairman of the Select Committee explained what the Committee was thinking when it included that in its report.
I hope nevertheless that the House will support the line pursued in the Bill and extend the powers of the MOD police.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise to support much of what the hon. Member for Portsmouth. South (Mr. Hancock) said. In quoting the Committee's conclusions, he probably reflected what the bulk of the population feel about the relationship between the MOD police and our own Home Office and county constabularies. Clearly, if MOD police officers come across an incident while travelling between bases, it is entirely proper that they should be able to assist other police officers in trying to prey ant crime. None of us would object to that.
There is concern that what the clause proposes is, to a large extent, open-ended. My hon. Friends have sought to table amendments to seek some limitation on the role of the MOD police. The public would not accept the MOD police being increasingly brought in, as a matter of routine, to support Home Office police forces, which we know are overstretched; numbers are clown by 2,500 since the Conservatives left office in 1997. We are concerned that local constabularies might be encouraged to resort to MOD police forces to make up for their lack of numbers.
The evidence taken on 6 February by the Committee included a letter from the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers general policing committee to the police resource unit of the Home Office. It said:
We have some sympathy with their officers who come across serious incidents and we believe that they should be acting as constables when they choose to get involved in dealing with such incidents. We would point out, however, that many more mobile patrols seem to be undertaken by the MDP officers and in doing so we would be determined to make sure that the officers were not leaving their bases and patrolling in order to find incidents to attend.
In other words, there was concern that officers should not seek to exercise their newly confirmed responsibilities and powers by seeking out incidents beyond the wire and outside the base where their principal responsibility lies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) helpfully drew my attention to question 438 in the evidence taken on 25 January, in which he asked a police officer, Mr. Tony Comben:
Can you explain a little more about what these standing arrangements are going to be and whether it will mean that the Ministry of Defence police will be patrolling garrison towns, civilian or not—what does it all mean?
Given the behaviour of the Welsh Guards in Aldershot at the moment, we could do with whatever resources we could get to curtail some of their excessive enthusiasms: resulting, perhaps, from the absence of training facilities as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic. Clearly, many of those soldiers are getting frustrated because they are unable to go out on exercises.
Mr. Comben replied that the proposal would allow someone at a senior level to say:
Okay for the next three months within a defined period where we have some notification of the threat your officers can do this part of the patrol outside and we in the Home Office will do some other part of the operation.
That suggests that what is being proposed here is more than the MOD police assisting, on an ad hoc basis, when they see a crime being committed, requiring powers under the Bill to enable them to act in the role of constables. It is, rather, a much more formalised arrangement, which is one reason we have reservations.

Dr. Moonie: This has been a wide-ranging debate and many views have been expressed.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would not remove the MDP's basic jurisdiction—for example, on defence land—to deal with serious crime, but they would stop the MDP giving assistance to a local police force in a serious case or on a police raid, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) helpfully—at least in some senses—mentioned. For example, a local force may want help simply to carry out an arrest for a serious offence; under the amendments, the MDP would be unable to give that assistance. The amendments refer to those parts of clause 31 that specifically enable police officers or forces other than the Ministry of Defence police to call on MDP officers for assistance. The amendments would limit the circumstances in which an MDP officer could provide such assistance.
By way of background, I should explain that the provisions in the Bill that would be affected by the amendments substantially restate the position in section 2(2)(d) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. Where clause 31 differs is in the removal of the geographical limitation in the existing legislation that relates to the vicinity of defence property. Clause 31 also includes the British Transport police and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabularies, as well as local police forces, among the forces whose officers may call on MDP officers for assistance.
In one respect, the new power is more restrictive than the old one, in that its operation is specifically limited to a particular incident, investigation or operation, whereas the old power was more generally drawn. Except for its geographical limitation—the limitation to the vicinity of defence land—the present provision has worked very well in practice and I see no reason to provide additional conditions. It is to be borne in mind that the initiation of requests for assistance under the provision rests exclusively with the officer of a police force other than the MDP. I hope that the Committee would have confidence in such officers being able to act sensibly in calling for MDP assistance.
Implicit in the amendments—I accept that it was not intended, but this construction can be put on them—is the suggestion that MDP officers are not competent to be involved in major operations. In fact, MDP officers have training similar to Home Department police officers', so there is no need to limit artificially MDP officers' involvement in particular classes of case if, in the opinion of a Home Department officer, that is necessary.
In summary, we consider the limitation proposed in the amendments inappropriate both because of the constraints that they intentionally impose on the ability of MDP


officers to provide assistance when it is needed and because of the erroneous premise that the latter are not competent to assist in the circumstances mentioned in the amendments.

Mr. Hancock: Can the Minister clarify for the House what rank of civilian officer can request intervention?

Mr. Key: It has never been stated.

Mr. Hancock: I think that the House is therefore entitled to be told what rank of officer can request intervention: constable or inspector?

Dr. Moonie: It is, in fact, any rank, because the provisions may be applied in an emergency. I think that we would all agree that it would not be proper to expect a Home Department police force to go up through the chain of command to find someone of sufficient standing.
I shall now deal with some of the other points that were made. A very limited extension has been made to allow MDP officers to respond in an emergency to the crimes of violence or events involving the risk of injury or loss of life that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. When an MDP officer is en route from one part of the MOD's jurisdiction to another and comes upon an offence that is being committed that clearly involves a risk to life or serious injury, he has the power to intervene as a policeman, as opposed to as a member of the public.
I can only thank the hon. Member for Reigate for his very sensible comment. As for the incidents mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), we can act only if someone cannot get help from the local police—we cannot cruise around hopefully, looking for violent emergencies. I am well aware of the problems that he is experiencing in his constituency and hopeful that we have in hand ways in which to deal with them.

Mr. Key: We are running out of time and the Minister has made his case well. My intention was to clarify what was meant to be going on, and we have been around the course; so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 32, line 13, after "privileges", insert—
', and be subject to the code of conduct and disciplinary procedures,'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 5, in page 32, line 22, after first "privileges", insert—
', and be subject to the code of conduct and disciplinary procedures,'.
No. 6, in page 32, line 45, at end insert—
'(3E) The Secretary of State shall be liable in respect of torts committed by a member of a police force engaged on relevant service within section 2, subsection (2), paragraph (d) to subsection 3B(b) inclusive; in the performance or purported performance of his functions, in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts

committed by his servants in the course of their employment and shall in respect of any such tort be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor.'.
No. 7, in clause 37, page 38, line 37, at end add—'Functions of inspectors of constabulary—
'(5) Protocols between the Ministry of Defence Police, Home Office Police Forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Police Forces Scotland, shall be laid before Parliament.'.

Mr. Davies: The Minister was kind enough to say that our last debate was wide ranging; indeed it was. I hope that he will agree that it was also serious and constructive. He cannot claim that there has been any element of filibustering or time wasting. Therefore, by his own statement, he has condemned the decision of his party managers to force us into a three-hour debate. Parliament being gagged in such a manner means that we are less than half way through the groups of amendments selected for debate and we have only 40 minutes to go. What is happening this evening is monstrous and the remarks that I made on the programme motion were, if anything, understated.
It is not the Opposition's view that Ministry of Defence police are professionally incompetent in some way—far from it. We shall certainly not engage in the sort of MOD police bashing that we heard from the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. On the contrary, we believe that there is a good case for extending the powers of the MOD police—

Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No, I shall not. If the hon. Gentleman does not like my not giving way, let me point out that my reason for not doing so is that there is no time, and that the reason that there is no time is that his allies in the Labour party have imposed a disgraceful programme motion on the Committee. If he wants to complain, he should complain to his friends in the Labour party. Given the disgraceful way in which the House has been treated, I do not intend to take interventions either from new Labour Members or from their Liberal allies.
We believe that it is sensible to extend the powers of the MOD police. We do not want an MOD policeman to be unable to intervene in an emergency when he is passing. We want MOD police to be able to support the civilian police and to add to police resources in the local community when required to do so. In the Select Committee, I suggested that it would be sensible to give MOD police explicit training to prepare them for overseas police operations—Petersberg-type operations, such as the one being undertaken in Kosovo.
We do not in any way oppose that extension of powers. However, amendments Nos. 4 to 6 reflect our belief that it should be accompanied by an extension of the disciplines, checks, balances, protections and duties that would apply to civilian policemen in similar circumstances. We want to maintain the balance and to ensure that pari passu with the extension of powers goes the extension of protections. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would bring Ministry of Defence police under the Police Act 1996 and make them subject to the Police Complaints Authority, just like the civilian officers with whom they would be working in the circumstances envisaged under the clause.
That is important because there is currently great doubt about whether Ministry of Defence police are subject to the PCA. Let me quote the exchange that took place between the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on 7 March in the Select Committee. My hon. Friend asked:
Does the MDP come under the Police Complaints Authority?
The Secretary of State replied, "Yes." When my hon. Friend asked, "Under the full jurisdiction?", the Secretary of State replied, "Yes." One cannot be much clearer than that.
It is a matter of considerable concern to the Opposition—and ought to be to the public—that recently, well after 7 March, we received an e-mail from a senior serving officer in the MOD police, who said:
police officers in the UK act under a code of conduct made by statutory instrument in 1999. The procedures contained therein derive from the Police Act 1996 and make provision for investigation and disciplinary procedures which propose to protect both the interests of the public AND the officers"—
meaning the civil police. The officer continued:
Conversely, MDP officers are currently investigated under an internal MOD procedure, inappropriately named the Ministry of Defence Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 … The stated regulations have no basis in law.
Previous statements to Parliament over the past few years, (made indirectly from MDP) have been equally as misleading as the response given to your Select Committee. Such responses have stated that the current discipline regulations 'mirror those of the home department police forces.' This is misleading at the least and at the worst blatantly untrue.
MDP officers are neither subject to civil service disciplinary procedures or regulations derived from the Police Act 1996.
I feel that it may be misleading to say that complaints against MDP officers are dealt with in exactly the same way as other police forces.
The officer continues:
In the interim, MDP continue to investigate police officers, make unlawful police inquiries into their private lives, form awards and hearings and award punishments etc. all without any basis in law whatsoever.
That is a serious charge, as the Committee will appreciate. In effect, the statements from the Defence Secretary that the MDP are simply subject to the full jurisdiction of the Police Complaints Authority under the 1996 Act are simply not correct. Our suspicions are strengthened by the fact that a written answer given to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 22 March, two weeks after the Secretary of State's clear and apparently unambiguous assurance to the Committee, is much less clear. It is plain that the Government are trying to weasel out of the Secretary of State's clear statement. In his written answer of 22 March, the Minister for the Armed Forces states:
The Ministry of Defence police complaints regulations are comparable to those of the Home Department police forces."—[Official Report, 22 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 299W.]
"Comparable" does not mean "exactly the same", so we need to get to the bottom of the matter, and we probably do not have time to do that properly. It may well be that the Government, having imposed the programme motion on the Committee, will be able to use lack of time as an excuse for not giving adequate answers on that important matter. A whole area of considerable doubt and proper concern about contradictions in what the Government have told us will never be clarified and Parliament will not be able to do its job.
No doubt you selected Amendment No. 6, Mrs. Heal, because it, too, enshrines the principle that the same kind of protection that applies to civil police should be extended to Ministry of Defence police when they serve or act alongside civil police. The amendment deals with responsibility for torts and its purpose is simple. At present, individual constabularies are responsible for the deeds or misdeeds of their officers. If officers serve outside their own constabularies and alongside other police forces, under section 97 of the Police Act 1996, the Secretary of State is directly responsible for any damage that they may cause or any tort suit that may be made against them. We are simply extending that principle to the MOD police when deployed in equivalent circumstances alongside other police forces. Indeed, the amendment follows exactly the text of the equivalent passage in section 97 of the 1996 Act. The great problem is that we do not understand the true position, because the Government are speaking with forked tongue again.
I am glad that the Secretary of State is now back in his place, because on 7 March, speaking about the accountability of the Ministry of Defence police, he told the Select Committee:
the Ministry of Defence Police are accountable through me to Parliament".
That is recorded in paragraph 1115, on page 161 of volume II of the Committee's report. It sounds absolutely splendid, but the evidence that we heard directly from the deputy chief constable of the MOD police, Mr. Comben, was not quite in line with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) asked Mr. Comben:
What I am now seeking to establish is the independence of the Ministry of Defence Police. My colleague, Mr. Davies, went through this and we established that you are accountable to the Secretary of State. This is very important because if the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police is completely operationally independent. I think you suggested that he would not get instructions from anybody, he would not even take instructions from the Secretary of State or officials in the Ministry of Defence, is that correct?
Mr. Comben responded:
That is absolutely so.
In other words, Mr. Comben was saying that the Secretary of State could not give instructions to the Ministry of Defence police.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I will give way, if I can finish my quotations first. Then the Secretary of State may be able to answer my question.
In a written answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park on 3 November 1999, the Minister for the Armed Forces used the phrase:
we instructed the Ministry of Defence Police to investigate the matter."—[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337. c. 214W.]
There is a clear contradiction here. The Secretary of State says that the MOD police are directly accountable to him, and a parliamentary answer refers to instructions given by the Secretary of State to the MOD police, but the deputy chief constable of the MOD police says that he would not accept instructions from the Secretary of State. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the Chamber, because he may be able to resolve this urgent matter.

9 pm

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman does not understand something fairly fundamental about the way in which all police forces in the United Kingdom operate. They are accountable to Parliament—in the case of the Ministry of Defence police, to the Secretary of State for Defence, and in the case of most other police forces, to the Home Secretary. Their being accountable means that Members of Parliament can approach the relevant Secretary of State with whatever concerns they may have about the problems that arise.
That is how most Ministers are accountable for the activities of those in their Departments. That is what accountability means, as opposed to operational independence—I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks up the word "accountability" in a dictionary. Operational independence is a basic principle governing the way in which police forces operate throughout the country. They do not take direct instructions on how to deal with matters. He really should not come to the Dispatch Box unless he understands those basic concepts properly.

Mr. Davies: It is the Secretary of State who does not understand what is going on—at least, that is the most charitable interpretation that one can make. I have just read out a parliamentary answer from his own Department which refers to instructions, so in practice the Secretary of State does instruct the MOD police to investigate matters and to do other things. That is in absolute contradiction of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said at the Dispatch Box, and of what the deputy chief constable told the Select Committee.
The Secretary of State owes the House an explanation of why, on 3 November 1999, his Department gave what he is now telling us was a fraudulent answer, referring to his having given the MOD police instructions that he now tells the House he is not in a position to give. Far from resolving the matter and explaining the contradiction, the Secretary of State has deepened our suspicions and made it plain that the Government have not been entirely frank with the House over this important matter.
The final amendment in the group, amendment No. 7, deals with protocols. That is also an important matter, precisely because no one knows what is going on. The Government continue to put up a smokescreen, behind which they can do what they want in the MOD and with the MOD police.
Under the previous Government, it was plain what the limitations were on the activities of the MOD police, in terms of the kind of criminal case that they would take up. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) was the relevant Minister, he stated on 27 January 1987:
The Ministry of Defence police would hand over responsibility for such crimes"—
that is, serious crimes—
at once. If the case involved murder, rape or any such thing there would be no question and the investigation of such crime would be handed, straight away, to the Home Department forces".—[Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 279.]
That is clear. However, as the proceedings of the Committee reveal, the picture now is very different.
The latest annual report of the Ministry of Defence police states:
An increasing number of offences of rape and other serious offences against the person are being investigated by the Force; during the past year 30 allegations of rape have been investigated compared to 16 in the previous year. Again this is not necessarily solely an increase in crime, but—
I emphasise this point—
more a reflection of offences being investigated by the MDP rather than by other police forces.
Once again, we see the Government's characteristic subterfuge and reluctance to tell Parliament what is going on. We have an extension of the powers of the MOD police, contrary to previous explicit ministerial assurances and with no intervening ministerial explanation to make it clear what the position is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge very reasonably asked Mr. Comben:
Why do you think the MDP should be investigating more offences of rape now than they were a couple of years ago?".
Mr. Comben responded:
Because of the protocols that we agreed with the Home Department forces".
In order to know what is going on, we must know what is in the protocols; hence the importance of the amendment.
One might think that the Government would have no problem with that. Perhaps I was too optimistic about the way in which the Government conduct their business—I expected that the Bill would contain relevant provision. During the Committee proceedings, I received an assurance from the Secretary of State that he had no objection to publishing the protocols. At paragraph 1107 I asked:
If the solution, or part of the solution, is these protocols which you have mentioned, would you be prepared, in order to make the matter absolutely clear, so that the public can see what these lines of demarcation are, to publish the relevant protocols?
The Secretary of State replied:
I see no difficulty about that at all.
Perhaps he thought that he could brush me off and I would forget about the matter.
There is no reference in the Bill to the obligation to publish the protocols, so we have introduced that through our amendment. Because we are dealing with an extremely slippery and tricky Government, we require the protocols to be laid before the House. They will then be announced in the relevant documentation and will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. Nothing less will suffice. It is crucial that we see those protocols, otherwise Parliament will never have a clear idea of what is going on.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It was not my intention to contribute to this part of the debate, but my attention has been attracted to amendment No. 6, to which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) spoke briefly. The purpose of the amendment appears to be to create a responsibility on the part of the Secretary of State to be vicariously responsible and also to be regarded as jointly responsible. There is a legal distinction between vicarious and joint liability, but amendment No. 6 does not appear to recognise that.
In these days of devolution, we must have regard to a further point. I understand this to be a United Kingdom Bill that should, if it completes all the necessary stages of


its passage, become a United Kingdom statute. However, amendment No. 6 deals only with England and Wales and not with Scotland, which has the principle not of tort, but of delict. In so far as the amendment seeks to make clear the responsibility of the Secretary of State, it seems to me that it has confused vicarious liability with joint liability, or at least that it has sought to combine them. It has, therefore, offered a remedy for circumstances south of the border, but not north of it. It would be extraordinary if the House were to agree to an amendment that created liabilities for the Secretary of State south of the Tweed, but allowed him to escape scot free—no pun intended—north of the border.

Mr. John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify the provision that amendment No. 4 seeks to change? It is important for hon. Members whose constituencies contain military establishments to be clear about the process for complaints by members of the public about the behaviour of an MOD police officer who has been acting under the powers conferred by the clause. Can the public complain to the Police Complaints Authority? If not, to which body will they have a right to complain? If there are procedures for complaints and appeals that might result in disciplinary action regarding the actions of Metropolitan police officers, for example, it would be inappropriate if there were no similar procedures for complaint against MOD officers acting at the request of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Will my hon. Friend clarify that point?

Dr. Moonie: On time-wasting, I point out to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that we wasted an hour of the time allocated to this Bill when we dealt with the programme motion. We have also listened to his speech for 20 minutes. I suspect that if both had been a little shorter, we might have had time to cover the rest of the important points with which we were hoping to deal, instead of listening to the self-indulgence of Opposition Members.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 deal with provisions that enable police officers from forces other than the MOD police to call on MDP officers for assistance. The provisions in question confer on MDP officers in such circumstances the powers and privileges that are held by the officer who is being assisted. The amendments are intended to subject the MDP officer to the same code of conduct and disciplinary procedures as those to which the other police officer is subject. That would mean that MDP officers were subject to the disciplinary procedures of another force.
We believe that such provision is unnecessary. There are currently differences between the disciplinary procedures of the MOD police and those of other forces. That is not at all desirable. Accordingly, schedule 5—I refer in particular to paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of that schedule—is drafted expressly to allow MDP disciplinary procedures to be brought fully into line with those that have existed in Home Department police forces since 1 April 1999. Expectations about the conduct of MDP officers are no less than those that apply to Home Department officers. Indeed, MDP officers are trained to the same syllabus and operate within the same legal framework. Complaints against them are handled

similarly and supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. The amendments would add nothing to that process.
On amendment No. 6, I do not intend to get into an argument with any of the legal experts on both sides of the House about the difference between tort and delict. My experience of tort is limited to that which has an "e" on the end.
9.15 pm
Amendment No. 6 intends to make the Secretary of State liable for torts that Ministry of Defence police officers commit, in the same way as, in the quaint terminology of the law,
a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants.
In plain language, the Secretary of State would be as liable as if he were the employer of the Ministry of Defence officers. As they are civil servants, the Secretary of State is already liable for their wrongdoing, in the same way and in the same circumstances as an employer.
The amendment appears to be based on a provision of the Police Act 1997. It makes the Home Secretary liable for the actions of police officers who are not part of a Department when they are working for a Department or, for example, on temporary service for the Home Secretary.
Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about responsibility for Ministry of Defence police. However, I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State, like any employer, is already legally responsible for their actions. The amendment is therefore unnecessary as well as inapplicable to Scotland.
Amendment No. 7 refers to the protocols between Ministry of Defence police and other police forces in different parts of the United Kingdom. The protocols set out guidelines on the respective responsibilities of Ministry of Defence police and other forces. Three such protocols exist: one for England and Wales, another for Scotland and a third for Northern Ireland. They will be renegotiated if the proposals on Ministry of Defence police pass into law. The amendment would provide for them to be laid before Parliament formally. It is not clear whether it is intended to apply to existing protocols or to the renegotiated documents, but the overall intention is clear.
The Select Committee took an interest in the protocols and received assurances about putting them in the public domain. We shall abide by that commitment, but we should prefer it not to be a statutory obligation; that would be the effect of the amendment. The protocols will have to be renegotiated and Ministry of Defence police will be only one of the parties to the negotiations. We need to be sure that the other parties are content with the idea of publishing the documents in their entirety.
I do not want to be difficult about the matter. If we have learned one lesson from the Ministry of Defence police proposals, it is that the appetite for information about MOD police affairs is apparently endless. We shall to try to do even better in future to satisfy that.
I understand the spirit behind amendment No. 7, but I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford will accept our desire and intention to be helpful and withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Someone should remind the Minister and his grinning colleagues on the Treasury Bench


that hubris is followed by nemesis. Earlier, I accused the Government of arrogance. It has got worse during the course of the evening. The Minister even had the temerity to suggest that we should not have protested against the attempt to programme or guillotine the Bill and that we should not have debated the programme motion. That speaks for itself.

Dr. Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No, there is no time.
Another insidious aspect of the meretricious procedure is that if we vote for our amendments or against the clauses, we take a quarter of an hour out of our limited time. It does not take a mathematical genius to calculate that if we voted for six amendments or against six clauses, there would be no debate. The Government do not want to hear arguments; they would be delighted if we spent all our time voting.
Although we have not completed our discussion of the important points raised by the amendments, I shall reluctantly but necessarily ask the House to allow me to withdraw the amendment. We can then try to make as much progress as possible on dragging the truth out of a reluctant Government.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Key: I do not believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill. The House is clearly not of one mind on the issue. The clause is the one genuinely contentious provision in the Bill. It absorbed the vast majority of our time in Committee and led hon. Members on both sides to ask a lot of penetrating questions. It would be no exaggeration to say that our confidence in the Ministry of Defence police was to some extent called into question as a result of some of the representations made to us. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee felt that there was a lot of serious unfinished business surrounding this issue.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my old sparring partner, reads me completely wrongly on this matter. I said that successive Governments had been unfair to the Ministry of Defence police because we had not been clear about what we expected them to do. Of course I accept his statement that certain aspects of the matter have moved on a great deal since 1987. Of course they have—and a good thing, too. However, there is still a great deal of uncertainty, and the Bill does not address that. That is why the clause should not stand part of the Bill. This matter should have been the subject of a separate Bill. The provision should have been bigger and should have addressed other issues. The Government should not just have looked at a little bit of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 and tacked on some clauses. We should have been given an opportunity to examine the issue of policing of the military in the widest sense.
The clause arose from the most extraordinary circumstances. That matters, too. What was the motive of the Ministry of Defence for introducing it in the first

place? That was revealed to us in a speech by the outgoing chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police to the Defence Police Federation at the end of last year, about the growing role of the CID in the Ministry of Defence police and about the protocols established with chief constables:
We have established the Protocols with police forces of the respective UK countries which we police but we still have anomalies in respect of our jurisdiction which is presently legislated for in the MDP Act of 1987. A more recent and poignant example was that of a request from 2nd PUS"—
permanent under-secretary—
for us to supply police officers on a mutual aid basis during the fuel crisis. I wrote back to the 2nd PUS and told him that he could have as many officers as reasonably practicable but he wouldn't be able to use them for the specific role that the Home Office had intended (that of aiding fuel convoys or policing picketed oil refineries). Having explained our dilemma in great legislative detail it wasn't long before the 2nd PUS was on the case. It has always been a point of great concern that fundamental issues such as where and when we can exercise the power of Constable have taken such a long time to be formally recognised. At last we have the final pieces of the jigsaw in place and ironically, it is the Armed Forces Bill 2001 which is the vehicle we are using to make these final changes.
So said the chief constable in one of his last speeches before he retired. He identified the reason why the clause has been tacked on to this important Bill, which allows the continuation of the military service discipline Acts and a number of sensible reforms that we have not opposed. We have agreed with the vast majority of the Bill; we have stuck to the timetable; and we have done what an Opposition should have done in Committee. However, this clause should not stand part of the Bill. It is not complete; it has not been thought through or debated; and it leaves a lot of stones unturned.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): It has been debated.

Mr. Key: The Minister says that it has been debated. It has been debated fully in Committee, but not on the Floor of the House. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have strong feelings about that. There is a lack of clarity in the clause, and it leaves a lot to be desired, as we have demonstrated in the speeches that we have made in the short time available. That is why, in spite of the warm welcome that we have given to many of the provisions, a lot of people in the House and outside it have severe misgivings about this part of the Bill. We have seen those misgivings written about in the press by distinguished commentators and journalists. Those in the Association of Chief Police Officers have also said that they have reservations. We have not had adequate time to discuss the matter in the wider context, and that is why the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Bruce George: I am not quite certain from the remarks of my adversary or sparring partner, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), whether he is recommending voting against clause stand part. I urge him not to call a vote not because that would waste 20 minutes when we have little time available, but because it would be awful to make the MOD police an issue of party political controversy. [Interruption.] I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), but he becomes semi-hysterical on these matters.


He virtually accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of lying by suggesting that the Police Complaints Authority had nothing to do with the MOD police. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain these remarks in the chief constable's annual report:
Of the 54 complaints recorded last year … 23 were informally resolved and, in two cases, the independent Police Complaints Authority (PCA) granted its 'dispensation from investigation'.
Obviously, the PCA is more than peripherally involved. I am sorry, I have mispronounced "peripherally"; it is on a par with "nemesis". Perhaps this is my pronunciation nemesis.
Conservative Members have had a good fling. I did not like the Committee procedure and I expressed my dislike more strongly than anybody, but the Bill spent a long time in Committee and we have had a debate today. I hope that the Opposition will decide that, of all the issues to which they could object, this is not one of them, and that they will not call a vote that would throw the MOD police into the political arena, which, frankly, they do not deserve. If there is any group of police officers that has been more investigated, I should like to know which. I hope that we can let the MOD police go along with their marginally additional powers. I hope that the coppers, journalists and Opposition Members who want to do so have had their whinge now. Let us not make the MOD police a political issue.

Mr. Blunt: Having listened to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) put his point of view, I can understand where he is coming from in respect of the MOD police. He has taken a keen interest in the force and has been a long-standing champion of it. He will, of course, take a great interest in the remaining stages of the Private Security Industry Bill, not least because of his interest in security issues.
Having been with the right hon. Gentleman when he pursued those interests in Moscow with the Russian Minister of Internal Affairs, I know that his knowledge is widespread. However, I have bean convinced by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I have criticised amendments that he tabled, so I hope that the Committee realises that I come to the issue with an independent perspective.
My experience of the MOD police as a serving soldier, a special adviser in the Ministry and a Member of Parliament has yet to convince me that it is a force with the same talents and abilities as the others in the country. There are proper and serious questions to be addressed and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is wholly wrong to tack on to the Bill procedures to deal with the MOD police.
The Bill goes through a five-year cycle and, typically, it is not controversial between the parties. As to making the matter party political, it is all very well the right hon. Member for Walsall, South appealing to Conservative Members' better nature. Of course, there is a considerable amount of it, but the fact is that the measure should not be part of the Bill, which should be free standing, just as the 1987 Bill was.

Mr. George: As a member and as Chairman of the Defence Committee, I have struggled successfully to avoid any vote since 1982. I take a consensual approach. I was a member of the Select Committee that considered

the previous Bill and which tacked on a measure on the sale of Greenwich naval college, so there is a well-established precedent for tacking on.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman should have voted against that.

Mr. Blunt: From behind me, my hon. Friend says that the right hon. Gentleman should have voted against that. I do not agree; I am afraid that the measure was necessary.
9.30 pm
We are going to run out of time—which is disgraceful, as ever—but I have experienced an armed raid—

It being half-past Nine o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS put the Question, pursuant to Orders [7 November 2000 and this day]:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 308, Noes 128.

Division No. 171]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ms Ann



Cohen, Harry


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coleman, Iain


Atkins, Charlotte
Colman, Tony


Austin, John
Connarty, Michael


Bailey, Adrian
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Banks, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Jean


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Battle, John
Cranston, Ross


Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cummings, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Benton, Joe



Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Berry, Roger
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Best, Harold
Darvill, Keith


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Liz
Davidson, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)



Bradshaw, Ben
Dawson, Hilton


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Denham, Rt Hon John


Browne, Desmond
Dobbin, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Drew, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Casale, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clapham, Michael
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna



Flint, Caroline






Flynn, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Fyfe, Maria



Gapes, Mike
Macdonald, Calum


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godsiff, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gunnell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshal, Jim (Leicester S)


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Meale, Alan


Hendrick, Mark
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hepburn, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Miller, Andrew


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mountford, Kali


Howells, Dr Kim
Mudie, George


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
O'Hara, Eddie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Olner, Bill


Illsley, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jamieson, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pickthall, Colin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Joyce, Eric
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Rammell, Bill


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooney, Terry


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank





Ruane, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ruddock, Joan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Timms, Stephen


Salter, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Sarwar, Mohammad
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Truswell, Paul


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tiwgg, Stephen (Enfield)


Skinner, Dennis
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
White, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Snape, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel
Wills, Michael


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stevenson, George
Wood, Mike


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Woodward, Shaun


Stinchcombe, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Stoate, Dr Howard
Worthington, Tony


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek



Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mr. Don Touhig and


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. Ian Pearson.




NOES


Amess, David
Fight, Howard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fraser, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Blunt, Crispin
Gibb, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Green, Damian


Brady, Graham
Grieve, Dominic


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hammond, Philip


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hancock, Mike


Burnett, John
Hawkins, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hayes John


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Horam, John



Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James



Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Keetch, Paul



Key, Robert


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Collins, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Letwin, Oliver


Cran, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lidington, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Llwyd, Elfyn


Duncan Smith, Iain
Loughton, Tim


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
McCrea, Dr William


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fearn, Ronnie
McIntosh, Miss Anne






Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stunell, Andrew


McLoughlin, Patrick
Swayne, Desmond


Maples, John
Syms, Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Ottaway, Richard
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Page, Richard
Townend, John


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Tyler, Paul


Randall, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Walterson, Nigel


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Webb, Steve


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wilkinson, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Willis, Phil


Sanders, Adrian
Wilshire, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Soames, Nicholas
Teller for the Noes:


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Mr. James Gray and


Spring, Richard
Mr. Owen Paterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MINISTRY OF DEFENCE POLICE

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 67, line 27, at end insert—

4A. After section 4A of that Act there is inserted—

Functions of inspectors of constabulary

4B.—(1) The inspectors of constabulary shall inspect, and report to the Secretary of State on, the efficiency and effectiveness of, the Ministry of Defence Police.

(2) The inspectors of constabulary shall carry out such other duties for the purposes of furthering the efficiency and effectiveness of the Ministry of Defence Police as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct

(3) Before carrying out any inspection by virtue of subsection (1) above in Scotland, the inspectors of constabulary shall consult the Scottish inspectors with respect to the scope and conduct of the proposed inspection.

(4) In this section—

'the inspectors of constabulary' means Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary appointed under section 54 of the Police Act 1996;

'the Scottish inspectors' means the inspectors of constabulary appointed under section 33 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.

Publication of reports

4C.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State shall arrange for any report received by him under section 4B(1) above to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.

(2) The Secretary of State may exclude from publication under subsection (1) above any part of a report if, in his opinion, the publication of that part—

(a) would be against the interests of national security, or

(b) might jeopardise the safety of any person.

(3) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of the published report to the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, and shall invite the chief constable to submit comments on the published report to the Secretary of State before such date as the Secretary of State may specify.

(4) The Secretary of State shall arrange for—

(a) any comments submitted by the chief constable in accordance with subsection (3) above, and
(b) any response that the Secretary of State may prepare to the published report or to any comments submitted by the chief constable,

to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clauses 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Order for Third Reading read.

Dr. Moonie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Before I deal with the main body of my text—which, I am glad to say, will not take me too long to deliver—I should like to correct the possibility of a slight misapprehension about something that I may have said to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) when we were discussing the search of premises. I tried to explain the fact that the word "searches" involves searches of space rather than searches of persons. In certain circumstances, however, provided that it were specifically mentioned and there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that an item had been secreted elsewhere, a search could involve, for example, the space of members of a crew or a unit other than that of the member who is under suspicion. I wanted to make that very clear as I may have been a little misleading on the point.
I should like to thank the Select Committee for its work on the Bill and for its report. The Committee was conceived a little less than three months ago, in circumstances that may not have been considered altogether propitious for the way in which it was likely to go about its work. That the Select Committee achieved so much is due largely to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). She managed to mix courtesy and firmness in presiding over the Committee and she proved resolute in promoting its interests.
As its report notes, the Committee was able to hold at least as many evidence sessions as its recent predecessors and to undertake a similar number of visits. However, that tells only half the story, as the Committee was able to attract witnesses of the calibre of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the chief constables of the Suffolk constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police, and the Chaplain General.
The visits conducted by the Select Committee included Colchester, HMS Invincible, which was off the coast of Scotland, Kosovo and Cyprus. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) may be of the view that those were three or four journeys too far, and he may well enlighten us about that later if he catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair. However, I know that the Select Committee found those visits a vital component of its work. The Ministry of Defence was very happy to assist in organising them.
I should say a few words about some of the Select Committee's recommendations. When the recommendations fall within the Ministry of Defence's sphere of responsibility, we shall of course give them the customary careful consideration. Perhaps inevitably, the Committee considered the issue of the tri-service Act that will replace the three single service Acts that we are in the processing of extending with this Bill. The Committee recommends that the tri-service legislation should be brought before Parliament within three years, whereas the Department is working towards bringing it forward as part of the next five-yearly Bill, as we announced on Second Reading.
The key issue for us now is to get the new legislative framework for the armed forces right. We agree that it is important for it to be in place as soon as possible, but it is even more important that the framework should be capable of meeting the needs of the services for the foreseeable future. We believe that it will take some time to ensure that we get it right. Nevertheless, we shall examine the scope for some acceleration of the project, and we shall be happy to keep the Defence Committee in touch with our thinking on that and on progress generally.
We have spent some time discussing the Ministry of Defence police today, so I do not propose to dwell on that part of the Committee's report. The Select Committee looked at the services legal aid schemes, and noted that there appeared to have been a problem recently with the availability of duty solicitor assistance for members of the armed forces overseas. That is about to be put right. It is worth mentioning that the services attach great importance to their arrangements for legal aid being at least as good as those available in the civilian sphere. There is a very serious intention that "accused in service" proceedings should not be at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts, and much of the credibility of the system of discipline in the armed forces depends on that. Where problems are identified, we shall do what we can to sort them out.
Like previous Armed Forces Bill Committees, the Select Committee inquired into the question of under-18s in the services. Of particular interest is the period of service required of young recruits. The Committee is properly concerned that potential young recruits should receive clear information on that and that those involved in the recruiting process should be responsible for ensuring that such would-be recruits have fully understood the information before they sign up.
In fact, the present intention—and, we believe, the practice—is that such recruits are given full and clear information, both prior to signing up and subsequently, about the length of time for which they will be required to serve. It is only right that that should be the case.

However, the procedures will be looked at again, in the light of the Committee's comments. In the meantime, we welcome the Committee's recognition of the need for the armed forces to continue to recruit young people straight from school, at the age of 16. Very many of those young people go on to rewarding and successful careers in the services.
I am sure that the House will not have lost sight of what the Bill is primarily about—the continuation for a further five years of the legislative basis for armed forces discipline. We believe that many of the changes in the Bill will help the administration of discipline; we commend those, and the Bill in its entirety, to the House.
Above all, we must remember those for whom we legislate—primarily the men and women of the armed forces. I again place on record what I am sure will be the thanks of the whole House for what the armed forces undertake and achieve, not only overseas but, as we have been reminded so graphically during the past few days, in this country, too.

Mr. Key: I add my thanks to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), and to all its members who made it so worth while. Despite the somewhat difficult circumstances of the original composition of the Committee—I suspect that when people read its report to the House, they will understand what we were getting at—nevertheless, as the report stated, we all did our best in the traditional way.
I am grateful, too, to all those people who gave evidence to the Committee and to those we met during our modest peregrinations. I especially thank the hon. Lady—so ably assisted by the Clerk—for the quality of her report to the House. I am also grateful to the Government for actually giving the Opposition several of the important things for which we asked. That is a measure of the success of such Committees. I am an advocate of the pre-legislative scrutiny route. I was converted to it by my membership of the previous Armed Forces Bill Select Committee.
I am sure that that approach works. The Government have listened. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence mentioned the legal aid scheme and his amendment to put on a statutory basis the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. He also said that there would be a new look at the employment of people aged over 16 and under 18, which I especially welcome.
I agree with the Minister that the whole purpose of our work is to ensure excellence in every respect for every member of Her Majesty's armed forces and, of course, for their families and loved ones.
I look forward, with some trepidation, to the tri-service discipline Bill. I am sure that Ministry of Defence officials are already working hard on that project. If they are not, they should be because we will be after them in a few years. Such issues will need to be addressed as we move on in the cycle. We all need to make more effort to ensure that the public understand more about the policing of this country. I am sure that most people do not often come into contact with the police; they see police cars dashing about and they are aware of red caps in the Army, but that is probably about it.
Any hon. Member with a remotely military constituency can be fairly sure that up to eight different police forces will operate there. I certainly have eight forces in my constituency. Of course, the Wiltshire constabulary is by far the most numerous, but the Ministry of Defence police, the Royal Military Police, the Military Provost Guard Service, the Ministry of Defence Guard Force, the RAF police, the Atomic Energy Authority police and the British Transport police are all involved.
During our travels and in taking evidence, it was clear that some people feel that the time has come perhaps to consider creating a unified military police service for the armed forces. That suggestion has its merits. I have heard some significant arguments for more purple operations and more joint operations between the services, and it might be time to consider those issues, but the counterbalancing argument is that people like to be policed by their own kind.
We shall have to return to the legal rules that govern the terms of the service engagement, which derive from the royal prerogative and from the judicial rulings of a previous age. The feeling among civilian lawyers is that the rules are skewed in favour of the Crown, and I alluded to that in mentioning the secrecy of some of the documentation, but it might also be timely to address the whole legal and conceptual basis of the current service engagement to determine whether an engagement derived from the royal prerogative is adequate in this day and age. That is inevitable; I rather regret it, because that has been the basis on which the Army's regimental system has grown up, but Professor Rubin has a lot to contribute, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has helped my thinking on the matter.
We must address the issues brought to the public domain in "The Future Strategic Context of Defence", a paper produced by the Ministry of Defence. I suspect that that important document is not widely read—more's the pity. I do not hesitate to say that the introduction makes it clear that the document represents not Government policy, but Ministry of Defence or military policy. However, it is significant and we cannot ignore the section on the political dimension, which states:
Crime, terrorism and political extremism may increasingly require a military element to the Government response.
I suspect that that is true.
It should be clear that, despite earlier comments by my old sparring partner the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), in no sense is this an attack on the MOD police; nor was the Division that we managed to squeeze in. I have been hugely reassured and impressed during the past three months by the growing professionalism of the MDP. I look forward to visiting Wethersfield. I have been invited and I shall certainly go, because I am convinced now that it is a mature police force and that its training is up to the Home Office standard. Not only is it inspected by the Home Office constabularies, but it trains Home Office forces in a number of areas; we must dispel the myth. This is a criticism not of the police, but of the Government for the way in which they sought to tack on that series of clauses.
I return to the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South will have had many such instances, but I cannot help recalling that on 24 February 1987, I said:
today, we shall create a police force with a national jurisdiction under the direct operational control of a Minister of the Crown. Throughout our nation's history we have resisted this sort of

arrangement and I am astonished that Parliament has allowed it to happen so easily … I recognise reality when it stares me in the face. However, I am certain that we have not heard the last of the Bill."—[Official Report, 24 February 1987; Vol. 111, c. 174.]
We should look to the role of the MOD police in future, as it will change. I have seen its new role with the Committee in Kosovo—under the direction of the United Nations—where undoubtedly it is performing a valuable international role, combining the best of British policing with a military tradition. That is perhaps one way in which the MOD police could expand in the future. I do not know whether that is the way forward, but certainly it should not be ruled out. It might be a way of strengthening the force.
Above all, we owe it to the force to give its purpose more clarity in the future than we have in the past. Overall, this has been a good and useful Bill and I hope that in continuing the life of the service Acts, we will have performed a service for Her Majesty's forces.

Ms Rachel Squire: Before we started discussing the Bill, some hon. Members told me that armed forces Bills tended to be technical, complex and boring. At times, this Bill may have been technical and complex, but boring it most certainly was not. As the House has gathered, from the start the Bill excited some controversy and there has been extensive and lively debate on many subjects. I have at times wondered whether the precedents that the Select Committee set might be used as case examples in examinations for clerks and MOD officials.
I wish to place on record my thanks for the compliments that I have received today, and I thank all Committee members for their commitment, co-operation and interest. I wish to thank Admiral Cobbold—our specialist adviser—the clerk of the Committee, the other parliamentary staff and MOD officials for their assistance and advice. I wish to thank the Liaison Committee for funding our overseas visits, which we all found invaluable in giving us a glimpse of the realities of dealing with military discipline in multinational conflict situations.
I wish to thank the Defence Committee for giving us access to its in-depth investigations of armed forces personnel issues. I wish to thank the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), for giving us his views and the benefit of his experience. I wish to thank all those who assisted us with their oral and written evidence and their general advice and assistance.
Of course I would like to thank also the British armed forces, whose national and international reputation for professionalism and standards is second to none. It is one thing to sit in the security and comfort of this Chamber or a Committee Room debating military discipline. It is quite another thing to be a soldier who is subject to that discipline far away from family and home comforts, unable to go off duty—often for weeks at a time—and dealing daily with people who are seeking to kill those he is trying to protect and who would easily and happily kill him if he gets in their way.
One of the benefits of the Select Committee process is the opportunity that it gives Committee members to hear directly from those who our proposed legislation would most affect. I wish to share three lasting impressions that stayed with me following our brief visits; they say a great


deal about the qualities of our armed forces and the situations of which we must he aware when we look at military discipline.
My first impression is of the presentation made by the commanding officer and his team in the 1st Battalion, the King's Own Scottish Borderers when we visited the Episkopi garrison in Cyprus. They told us how they had looked for the small but significant things that they could do to improve discipline and morale among the forces. Quite radically it seemed to me, they even involved the regimental sergeant-major as a key access point for the grievances of some junior ranks. Hon. Members look bemused, because they have not heard of an RSM playing that role before.
My second impression is of an instructor at the military corrective training facility at Colchester. He told me how he used his skills not only to help service personnel overcome the circumstances that had led to their misconduct, but in a voluntary capacity to raise money for a Russian orphanage. He took some of his annual leave every year to spend time at that place.
The third impression that will stay with me has influenced my perspective on military discipline and future legislation. I listened to the calm presentation of the Ministry of Defence policeman in Pristina who told me of his experience after the tragic bus bombing incident that occurred a few weeks ago. He had to deal with grieving Serbian families and, along with the military, a community that was hellbent on revenge, as well as supporting our armed forces personnel in their efforts to maintain order and to investigate and handle the horror that they had just witnessed.
Those three examples on their own say an awful lot to us when we consider military discipline. I have already spoken for six minutes and the House will know that the Select Committee spent much of its time examining the extension of jurisdiction. I wish to place on record my support for the recommendations in the Committee's report and welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South about the Ministry of Defence police. Certainly, at local constituency level, I and the community with whom they deal have always had a positive impression of them.
The time has come to move on to the long-term recommendation that we consolidate the legislation on military discipline in a tri-service Bill. The Select Committee is well aware of what a mammoth task that would be and the Chief of the Defence Staff made us aware of the flexibility that the different armed forces would require. All of us on the Committee thought that we needed to increase the pressure for a tri-service Bill and—I put my bid in early—for a full parliamentary Session to consider what would be a complex but significant piece of legislation.
Challenging times are ahead for all of us interested in the armed forces and military discipline. I hope that the Committee's report will play a significant, if small, part in future considerations.

Mr. Keetch: I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her chairmanship of the Select Committee. The selection of

its members was difficult at the outset and many voices in the Chamber expressed concern. However, by and large, members of the Committee have worked extremely well together apart from one outburst from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who accused the Liberal Democrats of being in cahoots with the Government. For the record, I remind him that we opposed the motion that was put before us earlier tonight. I also remind him that it was at our request that the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff came before the Committee. We played a significant role, as the record will show.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) present. In our debate on 9 January, I said that he should have been a member of the Committee. The reason I wanted him on the Committee was that I was aware of his concern that our actions now and those of the past few years might affect the military effectiveness and the core ability of Her Majesty's armed forces to do their work. When the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, came before the Select Committee on 6 March, I put to him the same direct question that I put to the commander of every unit we visited. I asked whether the changes that we were proposing, or those to which the House had agreed in the past few years, affected our military effectiveness in any way. The Chief of the Defence Staff replied:
No. it has not, and indeed, some of our worst fears on the bureaucratic side … are not being realised".
When I pressed him to say whether he felt that anything that we were doing would affect military effectiveness, he again said no, adding:
I can assure you that if operational effectiveness were being affected by anything, I would make that perfectly clear.
That underlines the statements that members of my party have been making for the past few years: the changes in discipline that have occurred have not in any way affected our military effectiveness.
We were right to visit forces overseas. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, sadly, is not in his place, thought that we were junketing, but he was entirely wrong. Our visits were extremely important because they enabled members of the Select Committee to identify exactly what we were doing, and Her Majesty's armed forces could feel that we were doing a thorough job. During our visits to Kosovo, Cyprus, Colchester and HMS Invincible—the last of which I, sadly, was unable to attend—we spoke directly to the men and, increasingly, the women who serve in Her Majesty's armed forces. I should like in particular to express my thanks to Brigadier Hamish Rollo and Major Mark Carleton-Smith in Kosovo and to the RAF people we met at Episkopi in Cyprus.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West was right about the King's Own Scottish Borderers. We saw a regiment based in Cyprus that is making innovations not only in the handling of discipline, but in retention and recruitment. The regiment's actions in the Scottish borders to recruit additional people and to bring back people who have left the regiment should serve as a beacon for the Government.
Two aspects have not been thoroughly discussed today, but they were fully discussed in Committee. The first is the accountability of the Ministry of Defence police.


We made a recommendation, to which I know the Minister paid close attention, regarding the composition of the national MOD police committee. We said that it
should be reviewed and that at least a third of its members should be drawn from outside the civil service, the police service or the Armed Services.
I strongly believe that that should be done. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said that I was wrong to criticise the MDP, but I do not criticise them—they are right to do what they are doing. However, they must be an accountable police force. If MOD police are to go on to the streets of Hereford, Walsall or anywhere else, local people must feel that they have accountability. The Committee was right to make that recommendation and to consider the protocols between the MOD police and local forces.
The Committee also expressed concern about firearms. We were assured by the chief constable of the MDP that if forces are either going on auxiliary to support the civil police—perhaps as a result of flooding—or travelling from one base to another, the firearms that they carry will be kept in secure safes in the boots of their cars, and that they will not carry sidearms or other weapons as they move about unless they are on escort duty or some other duty that requires them. I believe that that is not the case.

Mr. Hancock: It is simply not true.

Mr. Keetch: My hon. Friend is right. I have been told that in my constituency those officers regularly carry firearms when they are moving from place to place. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the assurance given by the chief constable to the Committee that that will no longer be the case will be implemented. That will prevent the situation in which MDP officers who come across a crime being committed get involved in it when they are carrying sidearms. If that happened, a can of worms would be opened and no one in the House would want that.
In conclusion, whenever we discuss these matters—and we do so sensibly—we must remember that the men and women we talk about put their lives on the line. We can talk about that, but they, and those people in my constituency who have lost their lives in the past year, have delivered the goods when it matters. That is why I am particularly concerned to ensure that nothing in this Bill or previous measures affects our capability. I am glad to say that I do not believe that anything does.

Mr. Bruce George: It is often said by football fans that football teams are not as good now as they were 20 years ago. The same has been said of Select Committees considering Armed Forces Bills. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) impressed us with his knowledge of the classics. Well, I am reminded of "Much Ado About Nothing". In the past, I have served on similar Committees, and we considered a series of issues, including capital punishment, gays in the military, drugs, women, race relations, human rights and what happens when a commanding officer goes bonkers. I must confess that the present Select Committee report is pretty tame stuff.

Mr. Key: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that all those exciting things happened under a Conservative Government—[Interruption.]

Mr. George: Absolutely; the commanding officers went bonkers too.
I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) gave generous tribute to the Select Committee on Defence, including thanks for the loan of our second Clerk. That was a grievous loss; when one is dealing with a labyrinthine, bureaucratic organisation like the Ministry of Defence the disappearance of one's deputy Clerk, from a staff of four—almost absent with leave—has repercussions for the Committee. I am afraid that was regrettable. Despite that, we agreed to loan our Clerk.
Had I been Chairman of the special Select Committee, I would have had more staff than Admiral Cobbold alone, who is an excellent adviser. One cannot deal with the MOD—unless the MOD is represented on the Committee. However, if balance is restored, the Committee then functions as it should and tries to monitor the MOD—rather than the MOD monitoring itself. In future I hope that the Committee goes in with more arms.
Very briefly, I recognise the generous remarks of the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I assure them that their remarks will be taken into account when the final case sheet is presented to the Defence Police Federation. It remains to be seen how much it takes that deathbed repentance into account. The most important message to come out of the Armed Forces Bill Committee is that it should not operate in the same way again. I hope that the lessons will be well absorbed by the MOD; the Committee should not be packed with Government Members, and should not have two Defence Ministers on it. Perhaps the Opposition could loosen up a little, and an odd Back Bencher, like the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) could serve on it—although he is the best example of why the status quo may be correct. I do not mean that; he would have been a wonderful addition.
Most importantly, procedures should be different. I would much prefer the Defence Committee to be involved from the outset and engaged in discussion at each stage; the Select Committee should not present major changes, or, in this case, less than major changes, suddenly and dramatically. The special Select Committee was right to say that a draft Bill should be presented to the Defence Committee; when the Defence Committee has done its work, perhaps the Bill can be passed on to a more traditional environment for consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is my sparring partner; I did not realise we were sparring partners until he said so and I picked up the insult—[Interruption.] We are not complete heavyweights.
I hope that the MOD follows the advice in the report and tries to deal with tri-service discipline legislation. The previous Government must take the blame for the fact that we do not have such legislation. We were discussing that in 1987, yet nothing has happened.
In conclusion—this speech will be rather briefer than my previous appearance here—I must repeat that in terms of accountability, the MOD police have had investigations up to here. They have had endless internal investigations, inquiries conducted by the National Audit Office, regular reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate of police, and reports on them by the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that we do not have to expose them to any further investigations, apart from the next one by the Defence Committee. Let them do their work; they are a professional force and deserve to be recognised, not to be perpetually kicked in the groin.
Despite its abortive birth, the Committee has managed to develop satisfactory work methods. The report, too, is satisfactory as far as it goes. However, I repeat my hope that when the next Committee is constituted, lessons will have been learned from the appallingly wrong decisions that were made three or four months ago.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I join the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who did not exactly praise the Committee for its work, but thought that it passed muster. I agree, because the remit was fairly narrow and restrictive; had a broader brush been used, it could have got into trouble. I shall use this moment to pay my respects to all those who took part in it, as I am an old soldier who is probably in the dying moments of his membership of the House, although I shall move on, fully alive, into civilian life—or rather, normal life—afterwards.
One thing that attracts me in the report is the recognition by the Committee of how dangerous the waters are in which it moves. I do not know whether there are many people left in the House now who saw active service in the second world war—probably only three or four, if that, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Those people must be very much aware that unless people have seen active service, it is difficult for them to get under the skin of those in the armed services, who may seem to us like members of a restricted club.
There is often a danger that we shall try to impose on the services some of the civilian laws and legal ways of dealing with complaints, including the European convention on human rights. I know that that has a strong appeal for people, but for the armed forces, in the future as in the past, our civilian rights and laws may not have the same resonance when it comes to questions of life and death. I hope that we shall bear in mind the fact that what works for us in our civilian life will not always work so well for those in the armed services.
I feel that strongly, as someone who has also been involved in peacekeeping in India, where we had to have a discipline that was rather different from that which prevailed when I served in Belgium for a short time, during the second world war.
I am reminded of the difficulty by the words of the outgoing chief of defence staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, who on 19 December, in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute, said:
If we hamstring our fighting services with inappropriate legislation then we will create a generation of sailors, soldiers and airmen who are little more than a gendarmerie.
To judge from the comments that I have heard from the members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate, that is not a failing that could be attributed to them, nor will it be in the future.
I hope that the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence will continue to share with us that great responsibility for providing a framework for discipline in which it is possible for the men and women of our armed forces to work as a disciplined team—to recognise the duty that they have to society, especially in peacekeeping, but also to remember that they are there to be tough and to defend our rights.

Mr. Hancock: I shall be brief, mindful that the House would be disappointed if the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) did not have time to speak tonight, as everyone has praised him and recommended him for membership of the Select Committee. He has put down a significant marker for the future.
Since Second Reading, the House, including the hon. Member for Reigate, has come a long way. I remember the contributions at that stage, and I fully expected the Bill to be fought tooth and nail. I compliment the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her eloquent and informative speech this evening, although it was too short. She did more justice to the Committee's work than does the report. Her six-minute sketch of what the Committee has been up to over the past three months gave the House an insight into the serious endeavours of members of the Committee—despite the obvious packing of the Committee—to get to the bottom of what the Bill is about.
I expect that there will not be a Division at the end of our deliberations tonight. I see no point in that. We all believe that the armed forces need the right sort of legislation, and we have come a great distance in producing that, although we recognise that the Bill does not go the whole way. Hon. Members who spoke in Committee and who are not present tonight made points that need to be addressed—for example, about the way in which courts martial are to operate in future. I welcome the fact that warrant officers can be further involved. They should not be debarred from sitting on courts martial where senior officers are involved. Junior Army and naval officers regularly sit on courts martial judging officers of equal or senior rank. That issue needs to be addressed. The way in which custodial sentences are dealt with and the rights of appeal need to be reformed, and no doubt that will happen in time. Hon. Members were right to put down markers in that direction.
Like the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, I believe that a disservice was done to the Ministry of Defence police tonight by some of the comments that were made. The MOD police have been knocked and I believe, like him, that it is about time that the knocking stopped. If we give them increased responsibility, of course we want to make sure that they are accountable, and that that added responsibility is clearly defined, not only to them, but to their civilian colleagues and the wider population in which they will operate, so that no one is left under any illusions about what that added responsibility should mean.
The involvement of MOD police overseas is a step in the right direction. I am mindful of the time and the fact that the hon. Member for Reigate wants to get in. We have come a long way and produced a good piece of legislation, but that cannot be the end of the story. I hope that the next review will deal properly with the outstanding issues and with tri-service discipline. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West that the Committee should have a year in which to undertake such a review.

Mr. Blunt: It is typical that I shall probably be speaking at the end of the Third Reading. I made a nine-second speech on the programme motion for the


Second Reading, I was unable to get in at all on a subsequent stage, and I was cut oft at the end of the Committee stage.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, for their kind remarks about me—the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were kind, once he had withdrawn half of them. I noted his point about the report being good, so far as it goes. The Chairman of the Defence Committee would be pretty unimpressed by a document of 67 paragraphs over 26 pages. By his standards and those of the Defence Committee, that is pretty thin gruel, given the scope that the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill had to cover.
The way in which the Bill has been dealt with must be reviewed, as the right hon. Gentleman said. There was the opportunity for it to go to the Defence Committee. A Defence Minister and a shadow spokesman should have been attached to the Committee. The necessary expertise would then have been in place to allow the Committee to consider all the issues.
The Bill is necessary, and it would be grossly irresponsible for the House to vote against it on Third Reading. This is the Bill by which we sustain the armed forces. It is a unique piece of legislation which gives us the opportunity on a cross-party basis, with the authority of a Select Committee, to examine the issues in proper detail. As I am about to run out of time, I shall conclude by picking up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Hereford, who should not weigh so heavily the evidence given in public by senior officers who have no choice about responsibilities further up the chain of command. Perhaps he should rely more—

It being half-past Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Orders [7 November 2000 and this day].

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Northern Ireland

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.
The order appoints 27 February 2002 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme, thereby attracting both the amnesty and the prohibitions on evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items provided by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
Section 2 of the 1997 Act requires that a scheme must set out the amnesty period. The initial period had to end before 27 February 1998, but the Act gave the Secretary of State power, by order, to extend the scheme by a maximum of 12 months at any one time. Four such orders have been made to date. Under the one made in May last year, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 19 May this year. The day appointed in any order must not be more than five years after the enactment of the 1997 Act. The Act took effect on 27 February 1997, so the five-year period that it envisages will end at midnight on 26 February 2002. The order therefore extends the period during which an amnesty may be provided to the maximum extent that is permitted under the Act.
The Prime Minister and Taoiseach stated at Hillsborough castle on 5 May last year that
the remaining steps necessary to secure full implementation of the Agreement can be achieved by June 2001.
That remains the Government's position. We are absolutely clear that we want to see substantial progress on decommissioning by June.
The report published on 22 March by the decommissioning commission, confirming the IRA's re-engagement and the continued engagement of the UVF and UFF, is to be welcomed. The commission stated in its report that
events in the last few weeks lead us to believe that progress … can be made
on decommissioning. Those are encouraging words for all of us who want the agreement to be implemented in full.
It would be unrealistic, however, to expect all decommissioning, including decommissioning by loyalist groups, to be completed by 19 May, when the current amnesty period will expire. The reality is that, as part of the Government's commitment to the full implementation of the agreement, we must continue to provide the means by which terrorist weapons can be put permanently beyond use.
It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning can fulfil its remit, which is to determine exactly how the mechanics of decommissioning should operate. That is the purpose and effect of the 1997 Act, which envisaged a maximum period of five years within which an immunity from prosecution might be required. Parliament approved that arrangement, and has


also approved the renewal of immunity on a periodic basis. That is why the Government have brought the order before the House.
In preparing the order, we considered the possibility of setting a June date for the expiry of the amnesty provisions. However, the Government did not think that extending the period for only a few weeks after 19 May was sensible. The reality is that decommissioning is a voluntary act, and it is not only the IRA who must decommission. Some of the loyalist groups that are committed to the agreement have made it clear that they will consider decommissioning only after the IRA has made tangible progress.
It would therefore be counterproductive not to have some flexibility over timing, and it would not help the process if we had to keep coming back to the House every few weeks. A longer time scale has therefore been chosen.
The Government believe that extending the length of the amnesty for the full period permitted by the Act is more advisable than setting a June date, because we do not want unnecessarily to restrict the decommissioning commission's room for manoeuvre.
The commission must be able to deal with arms from any paramilitary organisation, and it must have the tools to do so. In effect, we must provide the tools to help General de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to ensure that decommissioning takes place.
The Government, with the Irish Government and all the pro-agreement parties, have a responsibility to do everything in their power to secure the decommissioning of arms held by all paramilitary organisations. We are totally committed to that objective.
It is worth while putting the matter in context. It would be wrong to lose sight of the considerable progress on illegally held weapons since the Good Friday agreement was made in April 1998. The ceasefires have helped to create a context in which peace, prosperity and stability can flourish. It may not be a perfect peace, but it is preferable to what preceded it. The decommissioning commission issued a positive statement on 22 March, setting out the nature of its recent contact with the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters, and stating its belief that progress could be made.
In addition, there have been two separate, encouraging reports from the independent arms inspectors Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, detailing their inspection of a number of IRA weapons dumps. The IRA has stated publicly that it is prepared to put its arms completely and verifiably beyond use. All those stages constitute real progress in our pursuit of a peaceful, non-violent society in Northern Ireland.
However positive those developments, they are not enough on their own. They do not constitute actual decommissioning and they have not yet resulted in illegally held weapons being placed completely and verifiably beyond use. That is our ultimate goal. The Belfast agreement requires it, and all parties to the agreement agreed to work to achieve it. The Government, with the Irish Government, are committed to bringing it about through discussions with all the pro-agreement parties in Northern Ireland. Renewal of the amnesty provisions is essential to that goal.
Decommissioning is a central part of the Good Friday agreement. Removing permanently the bomb and the bullet from Northern Ireland politics is essential if the new era of peace and normality that the agreement envisages is to be established on a stable and lasting basis. To achieve that, we must work through the arrangements that are already in place, through the IICD and the mechanisms set up by the Decommissioning Act 1997.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Conservative Members will not oppose the order. After all, the previous Conservative Government introduced the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. As the Minister has pointed out, the legislation was intended to encourage voluntary decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. It sought to do that by providing immunity from prosecution for terrorists who gave up arms and explosives, and by prohibiting any forensic testing of them.
The amnesty period for which the Act provides initially ran for a year from the date on which it was passed—27 February 1997—though it could be extended for further periods of up to 12 months for up five years. The Act also established the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to deal with the modalities of decommissioning and to verify that it had taken place. We pay tribute to the work that has been carried out by General John de Chastelain and his team in very difficult circumstances over the past four years. He has achieved an almost unique position in Northern Ireland, in that he has been able to gain the trust and confidence of all sides.
Although we shall not oppose the order, we deeply regret that it has been necessary to introduce it and to prolong the amnesty period until 27 February 2002. The reason is clear: despie all their promises, and in defiance of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, north and south, the paramilitaries have yet to decommission one gun or one ounce of semtex. At the same time, the IRA has seen its political allies in Sinn Fein enjoying office as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. Furthermore, some 430 hardened terrorists—republicans and so-called loyalists—have been let out of prison and back on to the streets early. All the main terrorist organisations continue to carry out vicious beatings, mutilations, shootings and, in some cases, murders, even though they are supposed to be maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires or, put more accurately in their own terms,
a complete cessation of military hostilities.
The Belfast agreement made it clear that the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons was to be achieved within two years of the referendum—that is, by 22 May 2000. That deadline came and went. However, in May last year, in what appeared to be a breakthrough, the IRA promised to begin the process of putting its arms completely and verifiably beyond use. It said that it would re-engage with the de Chastelain commission, and promised to open some arms dumps for inspection by the team of independent inspectors, to demonstrate that its guns remained silent.
Like the Government, we welcomed the IRA statement, although, as the Prime Minister made clear in the House, inspections of arms dumps could not be a substitute for


decommissioning or, to use the jargon, "delivery of product". Since then, there have been two reported inspections of arms dumps by Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa. The IRA re-engaged with de Chastelain only on 8 March—the first contact since last summer. We await the next report of General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission with interest, to find out exactly how productive those discussions have been, although the Minister will forgive me if, on the basis of the terrorists' past performance, we do not hold our breath. The blunt truth is that despite last May's statement we, and the people of the island of Ireland who want nothing more than to see the gun taken out of Irish politics for good, are still waiting for decommissioning.
There are those who say that the fact that the terrorist guns are silent is sufficient. They are wrong. Decommissioning is crucial for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that its absence remains the single most important obstacle to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, which has yet to be implemented. The issue of decommissioning is also proving to be the single most destabilising factor in the entire political process.
The single most important commodity in the process is confidence, and it is essential that decommissioning should take place if we are to maintain the confidence within the Unionist community that is vital if the process is to succeed. Decommissioning is essential if the paramilitaries are to demonstrate once and for all that the war is over and that they are committed, in the words of the Belfast agreement, to
exclusively democratic and peaceful means".
The refusal or failure to decommission is clearly incompatible with that commitment. Until decommissioning takes place, there will always be a lingering suspicion about the true intentions of the paramilitaries: a suspicion that if they do not ultimately get their way through political debate, a return to violence remains an option. People will be entitled to ask why, if the terrorists are committed to peaceful and democratic means, they need to hang on to the weapons of terror.
Sadly, it still appears that Sinn ein-IRA are playing two strategies at the same time, which is best summed up by the acronym TUAS. That was the title of a briefing paper circulated to republicans in 1994. To one audience, it means "Totally Un-Armed Strategy"; to another, "Tactical Use of the Armed Struggle". That ambiguity should end, and decommissioning is a way to demonstrate that beyond question.
Decommissioning should happen because, quite simply, it remains fundamentally wrong in a democracy such as the United Kingdom's to have Ministers serving in government—apart from temporarily—while they are associated with an organisation that retains weapons. Decommissioning should happen, for as long the island of Ireland is awash with guns and explosives, the chance of them falling into the hands of dissident organisations that reject the Belfast agreement is significantly increased.
We are all aware of the serious threat posed by dissident organisations on both sides, not just in Northern Ireland, where serious loss of life has been avoided only through a combination of good fortune and skill on the part of the security forces, but here in Great Britain, as the recent bomb in Shepherd's Bush showed.
Decommissioning should happen because it is the clear will of the people of Northern Ireland and the will of the people of the Irish Republic. They voted in 1998 to take the gun out of Irish politics: they voted for decommissioning. They did not vote for an armed peace. By refusing to decommission, the paramilitaries show their contempt for the views of the people in whose name and cause they have so often claimed to act.
For all those reasons, decommissioning should take place, and it should take place soon. In their statement of 5 May last year, the British and Irish Governments set out the process for the full implementation of the agreement, which envisaged decommissioning taking place by June of this year. For that to happen, it would presumably have to begin in the next few weeks.
With that deadline in mind, we are somewhat surprised that the Government have chosen to extend the amnesty provisions in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 for the fullest possible period, to next February. Is not there a case for extending the amnesty only until June, as a clear indication of the importance that the Government attach to that date and of the urgent need for decommissioning to take place?
The decision to extend the amnesty until next February risks sending out a message that the Government have already accepted that decommissioning will not take place within the time scale envisaged last year. If so, that would be truly regrettable. We look to the Minister to reassure us that that is not the case, that decommissioning remains an urgent necessity, and that all pressure will continue to be put on the republican and so-called loyalist paramilitaries to carry it out. Everyone else has done their bit and, often at great political risk, fulfilled their obligations. Surely it is time for the paramilitaries to deliver on theirs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I apologise to the Minister for missing the first couple of minutes of the debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was here and reported to me what he said. I listened to his careful words and to the careful words of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), and I can be brief. The view in my party and among Members on these Benches is similar to that expressed from the Conservative Front Bench.
It is clearly right that when the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 was passed, a possible five-year period, renewable on a regular basis, was envisaged—that was the end point contemplated then. It is also clearly right that forward steps have been taken. The two people appointed to undertake the monitoring are held in great esteem internationally and are highly regarded in their job. Likewise, General de Chastelain has become an accepted broker with the paramilitaries.
However, we are getting near the end of the period—the new Secretary of State is as aware of that as anybody—and our nervousness is shared much more every day by people in the Province who have to live their lives in circumstances that the rest of us experience only occasionally. The promises and the indications given have yet to be delivered.
We will not divide the House. We accept the Government's good faith, and know that they are trying to bring about delivery of the agreement and


decommissioning; but one or two matters appear to remain unspoken, and I hope that the Minister will deal with them.
First, the last Secretary of State and the Prime Minister implied that we could realistically expect an agreement to be concluded by June this year. We are now dealing with the order in early April. If pressure had been put on all the parties, there might have been a logic—as the hon. Member for Solihull implied—in delaying the order or giving it a shorter life, so that pressure could be seen to be exerted to achieve the June deadline. Will the Minister tell us whether he contemplated either a shorter order or delaying tonight's debate until nearer the June date—a date in May, when the current order runs out—to put pressure on the parties to deliver the goods which, as the hon. Gentleman said, have not yet been delivered?
My second point is this: it is obviously a good thing that the IRA has made two statements, one last year and one this year, saying that it is willing to engage with the de Chastelain commission, but that was against a background of talks having been broken off in the first place. Can the Government give the House and the people of Northern Ireland any idea of whether further progress has been made? Is there any possibility that a date is to be fixed on which General de Chastelain will be able to give a positive indication of progress? Are the Government aware of any good news in the pipeline? Have there been a number of meetings between the IRA and the commission on which the Minister can report to the House; if so, how many?
I know that we clutch at straws to some extent, but they must be more than straws before long. They must be solid pieces of building material, to enable the peace desired by the Government and all other democratic parties in the House to be achieved.
Obviously I do not deal with these matters as often as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but I understand that the weapons dumps have been inspected twice in the past 10 months. That is all well and good, but what the people of Northern Ireland want is exactly what the hon. Member for Solihull said they wanted, and what the rest of us want. We want not just inspections, but destruction. We do not just want a monitoring process; at the end of the day, we want the weapons to go. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether, as of tonight, the Government have been given any indication that there is not merely a willingness for a further inspection to take place, but a willingness for the weapons to disappear by the end of the period.
Time is running out for the amnesty; time is running out for people to show that they mean what they say. Time is running out for a response to the perfectly proper initiatives that the Government have taken, with the support of all sides. We cannot call too strongly—on behalf of all the people of Ireland, north and south—for a response. We cannot go on saying, "Tomorrow, or later, will be time enough".

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): The order is a technical measure. It is necessary because, without such an amnesty provision, actual decommissioning could never occur. Obviously we shall want the order to be

made, to provide for that. As the current amnesty period will expire on 19 May, it is clearly necessary for it to be extended. I therefore support the order, subject to a reservation similar to that mentioned by other Members, to which I shall return shortly.
Clearly, the debate will range beyond the technical measure to review what has—or, more precisely, has not—happened with regard to decommissioning over the period. The starting point is the discussions that took place in Hillsborough in May last year. At that time, the Government set June this year as the point at which full implementation of all aspects of the agreement should be achieved. The original date set for full implementation was May 2000, but in view of the circumstances at that time, the Government moved it to June this year, which was regrettable but necessary.
At that time—May last year—we were encouraged by the undertaking given by the IRA to put its weapons beyond use, completely and verifiably. Our expectation was that the IRA would engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and agree a method by which the weapons would be put beyond use. We expected the republican movement to approach de Chastelain with ideas about how that could be done, so that a fresh scheme could be made and the weapons dealt with. Provided that the weapons were permanently beyond use or unavailable, people in Northern Ireland would have been satisfied.
Regrettably, although there was some contact—a telephone call, I believe—in May or June last year, there was no engagement. The failure of the republican movement to keep its promise resulted in the decision that I took, supported by my party, to impose what sanctions we could on the political representatives of the republican movement, barring them from the North-South Ministerial Council and possibly other meetings. That sanction has been and will be maintained until serious progress occurs. I am convinced that the republican movement has moved only under pressure. Any thought that progress can be achieved without pressure being applied is, I believe, quite illusory.
Republicans have recently made undertakings to renew contact with General de Chastelain and his commission and to have further discussions, and reference has been made to a report issued by the commission on 22 March. I commend General de Chastelain's recent reports. The most recent ones have been quite detailed and are worth reading closely. When the report of 22 March is read closely, it reveals that no progress has been made. Some who have spoken today have drawn encouragement from some of the language used in that report, but it is clear that there has been no progress.
There has been a meeting—one—between de Chastelain and a representative of the IRA, but the language used about that meeting is interesting. De Chastelain says that the participants reviewed events over the course of the past year and discussed a basis for further discussions. One can contrast that with the references to meetings that de Chastelain has had recently with representatives of the UVF and UFF, at which he says they renewed their commitment to decommissioning and their general agreement on modalities.
There is commitment and agreement on methodology from the loyalist paramilitaries, but with the republican movement there has not yet been discussion on the means


by which weapons would be put beyond use, let alone any agreement. As I read that report, I conclude that there has not yet been any serious engagement between the republican movement and the IICD—contact, yes; a meeting, yes; but no serious engagement. I regard that as a very serious matter. June is the date for full implementation. As has been said, if we are to see serious decommissioning in June, there will have to be agreement on methodology and various matters will have to be sorted out in advance of that date. The time in which to do that is running out.
The danger of this order is that setting or renewing the amnesty period right through until February of next year could create the impression that June was being undermined as the date by which full implementation will occur. It is very important that nothing that is said tonight on either side of the House should undermine June as the key date by which implementation has been agreed. Whatever the position might be in an amnesty order, de Chastelain's mandate was renewed in May of last year until June. That mandate derives from an agreement that was made by all the parties; it can only be extended by all the parties.
I know from discussions with General de Chastelain that he is aware that his credibility and that of his commission is at stake. If no serious progress is made between now and June, he is well aware of the possible effect on the decommissioning process and his commission's credibility. It is therefore important that all parties who wish to see progress on this issue should maintain the emphasis on June and maintain the pressure on the republican movement. They should make it clear to the republicans that there will be no extension of the de Chastelain mandate without serious progress on this issue. I intend to maintain that pressure, with regard not only to the sanctions that we have applied to the republican movement but to other matters. We shall take whatever course of action we consider most appropriate to reinforce the pressure on the republicans, because there has to be progress on this issue.
I shall not weary the House by saying why that progress is necessary. The reasons have been mentioned by the hon. Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). An additional reason is that there is already a significant worry that material, explosives and weapons held by the mainstream IRA are leaking into dissident republican organisations. There is some evidence of that happening from the devices that have been used. For that reason if no other, it is necessary for these weapons to be made permanently unusable and permanently unavailable. If we have progress on that, we can then start to tackle—effectively, I hope—the way in which some paramilitary gangs are transmuting themselves into Mafia-type organisations.
The people of Northern Ireland appreciate the progress that has been made so far, but they are conscious of the fact that the job is not yet done. A lot of hard work remains to be done to achieve the goal that we have set ourselves of producing a normal, peaceful society that operates in a wholly democratic fashion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The thesis that has been stated in this House over and over again about the agreement—so-called—has been a simple one. It is that

we can wean people away from criminal acts, violence and murder by making concessions to them. The whole of the agreement is built on that thesis. We have heard it repeatedly. People have emphasised that if we give it time, it will certainly succeed.
The people of Northern Ireland see the leaders of Sinn Fein-IRA every day. They hear what they say on television; they hear what they say in the Assembly and at their political meetings. There is no reason to believe that they have changed any of their views. A recent leaflet from Sinn Fein-IRA circulated in west Belfast makes that very clear. It tells the people of west Belfast, "We are able to make an announcement that we have succeeded in ridding you of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The police reserve which persecuted and tortured you and helped to destroy you will be off the streets in one year's time."
The leaflet goes on to say, "These people carried out against the nationalist people this campaign of torture and murder and on every occasion did that which they ought not to have done." It says, however, that the RUC will be off the streets. It says that those people are scum. It also says, "If they take employment among you, you have to make their life hell on earth. You must report them, and you must break the scum." Those are not my words, but the words being circulated among the Sinn Fein constituency. The heart has not changed.
Anyone in Northern Ireland listening to us will know how far this debate is from reality.

Mr. William Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should inform the House that the document to which he refers is available on the internet.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that it is, and I am sure that it will be widely circulated.
Can any hon. Member bring me evidence showing that any of the leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein have changed at all in regard to the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the British Army? We remember the days when, every Christmas, the IRA and Sinn Fein issued the statement, "Have a member of the British Army for dinner—they taste beautiful." That is the nature of the matter.
We need to read the history of the republican leaders in the south of Ireland, De Valera and the rest of them. They knew that those men would not be changed. Their own leaders knew that they would not be changed. Hon. Members may think that they have changed because we have let them all out of prison, given them this, that and the other thing, put money into their hands and did all those other things, but they have not changed. There will come a reaping day for Northern Ireland, but it will be the people of Northern Ireland and not hon. Members sitting comfortably in this place who will have that reaping day. As was rightly said, why do they want to hold on to their arms if they are not going to use them?
It is absolutely wrong for any hon. Member to say that the IRA's arms are under constant inspection. Only a very small part of their arms has ever been properly inspected. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not know how many arms they have or what percentage of arms is in those bunkers. Nor were those who inspected the arms in the bunkers the second time able to count every one of them and say, "They are all totted up and everything is all right." The inspectors had no idea whatever.
We have had a demonstration to try to alleviate people's fears, but they have not been alleviated. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) tells us that people are happy about the situation, but I have met no one who is happy about the situation. I have met no one of the Roman Catholic faith attending one of my advice centres who was happy about the situation. People are concerned when guns are in the hands of any section of the community and held on to. For what purpose are those guns held on to? As a leading MLA told us some time ago, if those people do not get their way, they will go back to doing what they do best. That man is the Chairman of one of the Assembly's important Committees. That is what we are up against.
We have put off this evil day. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann tells us that an agreement was made that June was to be the deadline. He says that we should not depart from that. If we are not departing from that, what are we doing by spreading the matter into next year? Why do we not stick to June and say that that is it? But we are not doing that; we are putting it off for another year because some Members of the House think that Unionist people will tire and say, "Oh, let them keep their arms. After all, they're not doing any harm."
No democratic Government can survive when members of that Government have access to arms that they will use if they cannot get their own way. That is the position in Northern Ireland.
As for the so-called loyalist paramilitaries, they will not disarm either. They have made that clear. No matter what they say to the general, they will not disarm. However, because they have little strength in the polls, they are not in the Government, whereas the leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein are in the Government of Northern Ireland.
Tonight, the House is putting its hand to a very, very foolish measure. It is giving IRA-Sinn Fein a prolonged period—another year—to plan, scheme and keep moving in the direction of their agenda. Their agenda is not peace; it is control. If that control does not come through the ballot box, it will come through the bullet and the bomb.
I shall vote against the motion. I think that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would want it voted against, because it extends to the IRA the liberty to go on and on—to hold on to weapons of murder and to attack those who bore the heat and the burden in those hard and evil days. It is a shame and a disgrace that we should be asked to do that tonight.

Mr. Peter Robinson: People in Northern Ireland who may be watching the debate on satellite television will consider it most unreal. Once again, the Government show that they are being strung along by the Provisional IRA. They are extending the amnesty beyond the time that they themselves said would be the final period for the full implementation of decommissioning in Northern Ireland.
It was a sad spectacle when the leader of the Ulster Unionist party made his comments in the debate. He should hang his head in shame. He was suckered by the IRA into making concessions to it, on the basis that he believed IRA members when they said that they would

decommission within a two-year period. Although they have not delivered, he believes them again, makes more concessions and allows them a further year to decommission.
Does any hon. Member believe that the full decommissioning process will have taken place by the end of June, as required in the agreement that was reached last May? I suspect that not too many hon. Members believe that that will happen—if any. Certainly, the Minister of State does not believe it, because if he really did believe it, he would not be asking for the period to be extended beyond June to next February. That is a clear indication that the Government recognise that, once again, the IRA will not decommission.
The truth is that, far from decommissioning, the IRA is stockpiling more weapons. We had some evidence of that when a court case took place in Florida. The FBI in Miami undertook an investigation, at the end of which it concluded that the decisions that related to that particular gun-running effort were taken
at the very highest level of the Provisional IRA.
What is the highest level of the Provisional IRA? It is its army council. Who is on the army council of the Provisional IRA? The chief of staff is Thomas "Slab" Murphy. The assistant chief is Brian Keenan. The other members are Martin McGuinness, the Minister of Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly; Gerard Adams, leader of Sinn Fein; Martin Ferris, another Sinn Fein member; Patrick Doherty, another Sinn Fein member; and Brian Gillen. They are the seven members of the army council of the Provisional IRA, a majority of whom are members of Sinn Fein.
Those are the people with whom the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has been dealing. They are the people who he is prepared to believe would decommission the weapons. According to the FBI in Miami, they are the people who took the decision to run more guns into the country, and we are told that their word is being taken in considering decommissioning in Northern Ireland.
How much do the Government have to be suckered? How much does the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have to be suckered before he recognises that Sinn Fein-IRA are simply stringing them all along, sucking the concessions from them and giving nothing in return? They may not understand that, but the people of Northern Ireland do. The people of Northern Ireland will take the earliest opportunity to tell the right hon. Gentleman what they think of his trusting the Provisional IRA.

Mr. William Ross: When I sat down to read the order, I thought that it would be instructive to look at the chronology of events. I noticed that the first piece of delegated legislation on decommissioning appeared in March 1998, and the second appeared in February 1999, extending the deadline to February 2000. In February 2000, the deadline was extended to 23 May 2000, which gives an indication of the high hopes that were around at that time. On 20 May 2000, the deadline was extended to 20 May 2001—for a year, which is all that was possible.
It is fairly certain that the general election will be held on 7 June, although Ministers may not think so. If they


do not, they must be the only people in the country who do not think that it will take place on 7 June. We are now debating the issue again today, so that the deadline can be extended to 27 February 2002—the last day of the five-year period, when the sunset clause takes effect and the legislation falls.
Of course, that raises a very interesting question. The Secretary of State made it perfectly plain very recently that the June deadline remained. What happens in June when no weapons have been surrendered for destruction? Beyond that, what happens in February next year when the decommissioning legislation dies? We have not been told that. Before we are finished this evening, we should be told what the consequences will be in June of the failure to decommission or destroy weapons and what happens as from February next year. Do all the benefits of the legislation fall? Can any weapons that are surrendered then be taken for forensic testing? I think that we should be told. If the legislation falls, surely we go back to the situation that existed before it went on the statute book.
The chronology of events shows that the Government have exhibited in relation to the IRA an annual triumph of hope over experience, We should not be under any illusions as to the views that Lord Mayhew—the former Secretary of State—took when proposing the legislation originally. As far as he was concerned, it was an absolutely vital element of the peace process that weaponry was surrendered and destroyed. It was not only Lord Mayhew who took that as a litmus test; it was treated as such by the right hon. Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) when she was Secretary of State. She made it absolutely clear that this was a most unusual piece of legislation, in that it suspended the normal criminal law, as she said on 22 February 1999 when the legislation was being renewed.
We have taken the serious step of suspending the normal criminal law, allowing people to do things that normally constitute criminal acts and to get away with them without charge, all in the hope that we would get the Provisional IRA, their fellow travellers and other terrorist organisations on the republican and loyalist side to surrender their weapons.
The Minister of State made it clear in May last year that if there were no extension, there was no hope of progress on decommissioning. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman was convinced—less than a year ago—that there was going to be progress on decommissioning. I hope that he does not feel too disappointed this evening that he has had to come back for another year. Perhaps he is just a slow learner and has not yet understood that the Provisional IRA and their fellow travellers have not the slightest intention of giving up their weapons.
A number of different wordings have been used at one time or another and, given that the debate only has a short time to run, I will not go into them. However, the right hon. Member for Redcar made it perfectly clear that the Decommissioning Commission was intended to collect and destroy the arms or to bring about the destruction of the arms by those who possessed them. Other options were also open, including the handing over of weapons for destruction.
Later on, the language changed. We had "decommissioning", "putting permanently beyond use" and "looking at things in the round". In other words, all

sorts of excuses were being made for not making it clear to the IRA that weapons had to be handed over and visibly and verifiably destroyed. If I were a member of the IRA and I saw the Government changing their language and softening their approach, 1 would be greatly encouraged not to move one millimetre. That has happened; the IRA never had any intention of giving up their weapons. They intend to hold on to them and use them as blackmail against the democratic process, the ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland and the Government. The threat is there; they have the guns and the bombs and, if necessary, they will use them to get their own way.
The Secretary of State made it clear a week or so ago that the target date of June this year would not be affected by the order. If he had not extended the deadline to February but had made the cut-off date 1 July, the Provisional IRA might have been more likely to believe him. Be that as it may, he has decided on February next year. His reputation in Northern Ireland will depend on whether he sticks to that date. It was not my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) or me but the Secretary of State—speaking for the Government—who said the end of June. If he cannot keep his word, he need not tell the people of Northern Ireland anything else. They will just not believe him.
June rather than February is still the operative date, but I still want to know what will happen at the end of June and what will happen next February if no weapons have been given up. What will the outcome be? Are we expected to forget completely the fact that an armed terrorist organisation with the capability to cause considerable death and destruction is sitting in government in Northern Ireland? It is being treated as a normal political party and it is feted across the world as though it has not been all that bad. Its members are viewed as though they fought a little war for freedom rather than as the ruthless, murderous thugs that they are. They live off the backs of the people of Northern Ireland and are involved in every sort of crime. They practise intimidation and terror every single day. The sooner we have clear answers to my questions, the better for all concerned.

Dr. William McCrea: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the debate seemed to be very far from reality. When one considers the opening remarks of the Minister of State and the speeches of other Members, it is clear that they are far from reality. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to clutching at straws and said that we needed solid building material. There is no doubt that we are clutching at straws when we try to get any reality or reason into this debate by considering what is happening in the Province.
The Minister's opening speech was revealing. I noticed that he was busily munching sweets when my colleagues were speaking, but I remind him of what he said. He took us back to the Belfast agreement and to the promise of May 2000 when we were supposed to have the total decommissioning of terrorist weapons. He reminded us that nothing happened in May 2000—just the empty void, being led by the nose and being suckered by the provos laughing all the way to the bank having got concession after concession from gullible Governments and previous


Secretaries of State, especially the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam).
The right hon. Lady prostrated herself even in the prison itself in front of the provos to try to get them on to her train. It was a disgraceful and despicable act. She crawled to some of the greatest and vilest terrorists that have ever lived in our Province, who rained sorrow and tragedy on the people of the Province and the United Kingdom.
At the end of May 2000, nothing happened, but we were told that there had been a breakthrough. That breakthrough led to more concessions by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, who has just left his seat to carry out some other business. The breakthrough was restoring Martin McGuinness and Barbara Brown—Bairbre de Brun—to their special places holding ministerial office over the people they had murdered and destroyed during the years of terror.
We had the promise of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I should like to ask the Minister of State this question: what has been the cost of that commission from the time that de Chastelain started his work to now? The people of the United Kingdom have met that cost and it would be interesting to find out exactly how much it is. People in the Province cannot get cancer operations and heart operations when they need them, but there seems to be an endless amount of money going to the commission. It would be interesting the learn the precise cost of that farce of a decommissioning commission.
Anyone who knows the reality knows fine well that the provos never had any intention and still have no intention of giving up their weapons. They are stringing people along in the knowledge that all they have to do is make another little gesture to get another round of concessions. They have every reason to believe that, because time after time they have got concession after concession—a stream of concessions has flowed to the republican movement. It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) say that we have to maintain pressure on the republican movement—that will make the provos shudder and tremble in their shoes, given what pressure has been applied until now!
The Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserve have been trampled in the gutter. The leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), has read a document sent in the name of Sinn Fein-IRA throughout the Province: it calls the gallant RUC, GC "scum". The leopard has not changed its spots. Previous Secretaries of State have thrown their arms around those people and photographs record the kisses they had along the way with the darlings of the movement. Decent people were sick and continue to be sick.
The Secretary of State might find that funny, but I tell him that the decent people will have an opportunity to speak in the forthcoming general election. Whether he likes it or not, he will have to listen to the authentic voice of the Unionist population, because the ballot box will give that authentic voice when, in a few months at most, the Prime Minister decides finally to call it. Roll on that election—let the people speak. The people of Northern

Ireland are not those who are courted by the Secretary of State, lauded, applauded and given positions. The people are the ordinary, decent voters of Northern Ireland who sent me here, even though the Labour party did not want the hon. Member for South Antrim to be a member of the Democratic Unionist party. They sent me here as their authentic voice. They will return me as that authentic voice whenever the election comes, and I shall be happy to put my record before them at that time.
We are told that the deadline is June 2001, but June 2001 is coming and the Minister of State knows that there are no guns, so what do the Government do? They move the deadline to the furthest date possible under the legislation, to February 2002. None the less, the Minister of State knows the provos and knows full well that they have no intention of giving up their weapons. If they had such an intention, why would they be arming and re-arming?
I think that the Minister of State thinks that he is in a funny house. He should stand on the ground with the people of my constituency and the Province—the people who to this very day suffer under the terror of the provos. There was nothing funny about what happened last night, when the gunmen fired their weapons and houses were petrol-bombed in Glengormley and Cookstown. The provos go on day after day, week after week. They have not given up their old path and have never moved an inch from their original direction and what they espoused in imposing their weaponry of fear on ordinary people. Yet the Minister said that de Chastelain's report was "encouraging". It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that no progress has been made, and that there has not been any serious engagement. Is that encouraging?
Once the provos were applauded for letting two of their dumps be seen, but which dump were the guns from Florida going to? At the same time, they were taking part in the peace process and Martin McGuinness, who was involved, was making authorisations. The Secretary of State has told my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim that he does not believe in those pieces of paper. However, he knows full well who is the leader of the provos.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I did not say that I did not believe in those pieces of paper. I said that I do not discuss them.

Dr. McCrea: The Secretary of State may not discuss them, but the reason why he cannot is that he is embracing the people mentioned on them as Ministers over the people of Northern Ireland. They have committed murder. Martin McGuinness appears on one piece of paper as a member of the army council of the provos, yet that organisation carries on murdering to this day. It continues with intimidation and threats and holds its community to ransom. The Secretary of State knows that full well, but does not want to discuss it because the Government have embraced those people as the new democrats. If they are new democrats, God help democracy.
The leopard has not changed his spots. I wish with all my heart that it had, because I know exactly what it is like for the IRA gun to be fired, not at someone else, but at my own. I know what it is like for a bomb to come to my own house; I know what it is like to face terrorist


activity; I know what it is like to sit with those who have constantly experienced that. The IRA are still going on. Why else were they bringing in guns? Was that for a Christmas party? No, it was for murder and destruction. IRA and Sinn Fein know that their arguments will never turn the Unionist majority into republicans, and they know that only one weapon can screw the heart out of the Unionist population—the gun. They have never been able, through the power of their oratory, to change the hearts of Unionists, who believe in the right of democracy and the right to decide their destiny and democratic future through the ballot box alone.
Irrespective of whether terrorists are so-called republicans or so called Unionists, there is no place for arms in their hands. That is why law-abiding people want all terrorist arms to be removed from everyone; no one should be left with arms, except the security forces, who have the right to defend the law-abiding people of the United Kingdom. I am therefore telling the House that the provos have blackmailed the Government and told us that they will go back to what they know best. When the stream of concessions stops, they certainly intend to move back to the path of brutality, murder and destruction. The only way to stop that is to have terrorist weaponry removed from terrorists. I know that the Secretary of State—and the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate—will tell me that they believe that this order is the best way to bring that about. In my opinion, and in the opinion of those who elected me to this House, that is totally naive, because the provos never intended to give up their weapons. That is why they are stockpiling more.
There were those who suggested that there was a seepage of weapons—to the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA. Is that why the provos were bringing weapons in? Is that why they had to renew their stockpile? It is said that they have espoused democracy, but no true democrat can have the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other.
I believe that the people of Northern Ireland deserve peace—a real and lasting peace—and that that will come about when terrorism and the terrorists, whoever they are, are defeated, and the democrats can rule.

Mr. Ingram: I shall try to deal with all the points that were raised in the debate, and I shall deal first with those raised by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I accept the fact that he welcomes the order in principle, and I understand some of the reasoning that he used to set himself a position slightly different from that of the Government. I know that he understands that the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the way in which the amnesty flows from it, were set up by the previous Administration, so this is continuum.
At that time, it was decided that five years was the period over which such a process was likely to be conducted, after which the Act would come up for further consideration by the House if no progress had been made. Of course, there was no suggestion then that we were likely to achieve the Good Friday agreement. That was a major step forward, as everyone, including the hon. Gentleman, recognised at the time.
In one sense, I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the possibility that some people may take the wrong signals from the extension. That may happen.

There is not unanimity of opinion in Northern Ireland; not everyone marches to the same tune. There will be those who seek to exploit what we are doing for their own ends—although I do not say that that is the spirit in which he raised the matter.
Neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein is under any such illusion. They both know that the Government are determined to deliver on the commitment given last May that June is the target date, and remains our objective. That is the way in which the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland have gone about their business, time after time, constantly seeking to get all the parties round the table and move the process forward. No pro-agreement party should be under any illusion about the Government's determination.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the on-going discussions that there may or may not have been between the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the various groups with which it is in contact. It is for the de Chastelain commission to advise the Governments on meetings with the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or any other group to which it may be talking.
The commission's most recent report, on 22 March, said that its meeting with the IRA representative had been in good faith. It also stated the commission's expectation that further meetings would occur soon. That was how it reported not only to the Governments but publicly. I would analyse that as progress, and that was how the commission set things out in its statement; it used a word that could lead us to that conclusion. This was not the end of the process, but again, it was part of a momentum towards achieving what we all hope will be the end result.
Further to that, General de Chastelain has made it clear on a number of occasions that if he believes that progress is not possible, he will say so. He has not said that, but he would do so if that is how matters appeared to him. The general's integrity and judgment are beyond question. I know that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey would accept that. There are no secret deals and no secret knowledge. That which the commission obtains from its points of contact is eventually reported on. It is then for the House and the wider community to consider that.
I repeat that if General de Chastelain makes an assessment of the situation and concludes that no progress has been made, he would say so. I am sure that that would resonate widely and deeply in everything that we are doing, but he has not said that yet, nor is there an indication that he is likely to do so. A textual analysis of what he reported on 22 March shows the opposite to be the case.
I pay tribute to the resolute way in which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has stuck to his task. It has not been an easy task, and I know that he receives many plaudits, but it is worth constantly paying him such compliments, because he has a difficult job trying to lead his party down a route that is difficult for him and for many in the Unionist community.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that he has stuck to his task, as has the Prime Minister. The way in which the two Governments have dealt with the issue and the determination that they have shown is what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want.


They may not necessarily have voted for it or even in support of the Good Friday agreement, but ultimately the objective that we seek is what they want, even those who at present may give electoral support to parties that have not yet totally turned away from violence. That is the mood of wider opinion in Northern Ireland. I am conscious of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not present for my opening comments. The June target date remains the operative date for the Government as well.
I shall not spend too long on the comments of the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), or even those of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I have heard their argument time and again. It contains no solution. I understand their criticism. I understand that they say that we offer hope, rather than delivering anything more substantial, but what is the alternative? Is it to go back to the violence and back to war? Is that what they want? Is that what they want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland?

Dr. McCrea: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram: In a moment. I shall deal with some of the offensive comments that the hon. Gentleman made. [Interruption.]
If bombast alone could remove the bullet from Northern Ireland, it would have gone long ago, but shouting, ranting and raving at it does not deliver peace. That will be achieved by careful analysis of the situation, by considering where the problems exist in Northern Ireland, by trying to find points of agreement and by creating the inclusive society envisaged in the Good Friday agreement.
The hon. Member for South Antrim has been shouting at me, but I hope that I have silenced him, for the first time.

Dr. McCrea: It was the provos, not the Minister of State, who tried to silence this hon. Member. It was the provos who tried to murder my family and me. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know how hurtful it is to suggest that we are going back to violence, when we have been the butt of the terrorist violence? We are not taking up any gun. We never pointed any gun at them. We are not doing so now. I find it extremely insulting for him to suggest to someone who believes in democracy and whom the provos have tried to murder that we want to go back to the gun. We want the guns stopped.

Mr. Ingram: I do not for one moment deny the threats that have been suffered by the hon. Gentleman and his family, but I can look around the House and see others who have suffered similar threats. They might not have suffered to the same extent, but the potential was there. Many families have had to accept the possibility of such violence being visited upon them because a member of their family—perhaps a Member of Parliament—had taken the arguments on.
That is the reality that is faced by all of us who deal with these issues, so the hon. Gentleman is not unique. I recognise the sensitivity that is involved. I have not been

Minister for victims for so long without understanding the extent and depth of the grief that exists in Northern Ireland. We have tried to tackle that grief sensitively and not to turn our face away from it. We have tried not to exploit the situation, but to heal it. We do not want to create divisions or continue to exploit the sectarian bitterness in Northern Ireland. Instead, we want to try to achieve a better and more decent society. I think that my objectives are different from his.
The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about the visit made to the Maze by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, she did not visit the republican prisoners. She met the so-called loyalist prisoners. He might have recognised some of them, as he shared platforms with some of those very evil people. That is the reality. It was widely recognised that her brave decision ensured that the loyalist groups remained on ceasefire. As we have said consistently, we are not involved in a perfect peace. There are major difficulties—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I say to the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that they should keep quiet while they are in a sedentary position. There are strong opinions and they can be expressed strongly in this House, but they must be expressed within the rules of order.

Mr. Ingram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There are heated views to be expressed, and the temperature has been raised by DUP Members. We are on a difficult road, and this is an imperfect peace. We are seeking a more perfect solution as best we can, so I ask them the same question: if we do not pursue that, then what? Is it more Army, more violence and more of what we had in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? Is it more of what the DUP does when it says that it does not share government with Sinn Fein, but joins it in Assembly committees? They try to have it both ways. They say publicly that they do not support such arrangements, but I have met joint delegations consisting of DUP and Sinn Fein councillors, as well as other representatives of those two parties. If the DUP is not going to have dealings with Sinn Fein, that should be complete and total; it should do so in no way at all.
I accept that DUP Members understand the importance of democracy and are aware that there is sometimes a need to talk to one's enemy to further one's own political ends. That is what DUP representatives are doing when they participate in joint delegations to meet me as a Minister, as they have done a number of times. I shall not accuse them of hypocrisy, because I cannot use that word. I am sure, however that many people outside the House will question why they do not serve on the Executive with Sinn Fein, but join it in making a variety of other representations.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I would certainly not walk out of this House if Sinn Fein came into it, and I doubt whether any other hon. Member would do so.
The Minister asked about an alternative. I am not sure whether he heard the view that was belatedly expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble),


who said earlier that it is only pressure that has forced Sinn Fein to change its view. Of course, there is no pressure, because, as he conceded he gave in to everything, and that has always been his position. If pressure is the way to achieve progress, could not the utmost pressure be applied to Sinn Fein simply by saying, "You don't get into government until you have decommissioned", rather than by putting it into government first and then asking it to decommission?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman does not support the Good Friday agreement; he is therefore out of synch with the majority who supported it. The Good Friday agreement did not make the requirement that he outlined, and the people did not sign up to such a requirement. A series of iterative processes had to he undergone. Some were required of the Government and the Irish Government; others were required of other parties. They are all being taken forward.
Does the hon. Gentleman have a blueprint instead of the Good Friday agreement other than being resolute or saying "No" at a time when republicanism is writ large in the form of the dissident Real IRA? We have never hidden from the fact that violence exists, but we must determine the way in which to overcome it. All of us who are taking forward the Good Friday agreement are trying to achieve that. It would help the process of moving towards a different, better Northern Ireland immeasurably if members of the Democratic Unionist party found it in their hearts to be inclusive, and acknowledged that they might have to sit round a table with those who have opposed them in the past.
Absolutism will not succeed in Northern Ireland; it has not succeeded in the past, and it will not succeed in future. That is why the people of Northern Ireland voted for the Good Friday agreement in such large numbers. They knew the difficulties and problems.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: No, I have only a few more minutes.
We have said time and again since May last year that June remains our target date. We are set on that course, which was decided at our last engagement with Sinn Fein at Hillsborough. It remains our position. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported on 22 March that progress had been made. Much more needs to be made.
I set out the reasoning behind extending the amnesty until February next year. It does not alter the target date; it simply takes the amnesty period to the point at which the five years outlined in the Act expire. As I tried to explain earlier, it avoids our retuning to the House time and again to renew the amnesty.
I also pointed out that some so-called loyalist groups said that they would begin their decommissioning only after they witnessed some tangible movement from the IRA. There is therefore a requirement for a period that extends beyond 19 May and the few weeks after that, which some hon. Members requested.
I accept that the order may not be wholly welcome, but we must agree to differ on that. The Government have shown that we can move forward. We have a much more peaceful Northern Ireland with an economic position that makes it stand out from many other regions of the United

Kingdom. That would not have happened without the Good Friday agreement and without basing our economic approach on what the agreement will achieve. I therefore ask hon. Members to accept the order, which provides a framework for moving forward.

Question put:—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 4 April, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together motions 8 and 9.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 80) on 2001–02 Special Grant for Rate Relief in respect of Hardship Caused by Foot and Mouth Disease (HC368), which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

OLIVE OIL

That this House takes note of the European Union Document No. 9431/00, Special Report No. 11/2000 of the Court of Auditors on the support scheme for olive oil; and supports the Government's aim of pressing for further reform of the regime to reduce its costs, complexity and opportunities for fraud.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10802/00, draft directives on waste electrical and electronic equipment and on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment; notes the Government's current negotiating line on the Document; and supports the Government's actions.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 4 April, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Lupus

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

12 midnight

Mrs. Janet Dean: I am delighted to have been successful in securing this Adjournment debate. Several weeks ago, I tried without success to secure a debate on brewing, which is important to my constituency. Tonight, I am pleased to address the House on an important issue, about which people's awareness needs to be raised.
We are all familiar with awareness weeks as they seem to occur for one thing or another throughout the year, and we wear our ribbons and badges with pride. Lupus awareness week, which is between 14 and 21 April this year, is special because awareness of lupus needs to be raised. It needs to become more well known than it is.
I want to pay tribute to Lupus UK for its work in trying to raise the profile of systemic lupus erythematosus, which is the name of the condition. I also pay tribute to Cheryl Marcus, who founded the British SLE Group—the forerunner of Lupus UK—in 1978. The current chairman, Ronnie Gourley, and the vice-chairman, Yvonne Norton, work hard to make the general public and the medical profession more aware of the condition. They were also a great help in supporting the formation of the all-party group approximately a year ago.
Systemic lupus erythematosus is difficult to say, and difficult to live with. It is an auto-immune disease. "Systemic" means throughout the system. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) just asked me what the derivation of "lupus" was. It is the Latin word for "wolf". Some people with the condition have a wolf-like rash across their cheeks. "Erythematosus" simply means a reddening, or an inflammation. People with systemic lupus erythematosus can have inflammations of many parts of the body—a few parts or a lot—with organs such as the heart, the brain and the kidneys being affected. The skin and the joints can also be affected—you name it, and it will probably be involved in some cases, although not in others.
There are some interesting facts about lupus. One in 750 women in the UK have the condition. Worldwide, lupus is more common in some races than in others. It affects about one in 1,000 white women. In black women, the figure is as high as one in 200. Asian races have a higher tendency to lupus as well. It predominantly attacks women of childbearing age, but young children and men can also be affected, and 10 per cent. of lupus patients are male.
Although the disease is little known in this country, it is better known elsewhere. Worldwide, it is more prevalent than leukaemia, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis. It is estimated that some 50,000 people in the UK have lupus, many of whom have not yet been diagnosed. Twenty per cent. of recurrent miscarriages have a direct link with lupus and the associated Hughes syndrome.
When I first heard of lupus, back in 1970, I had to write it down on a piece of paper to remember it. Very few people seemed to have heard of it in those days. Sadly, I heard about the disease because my mother was diagnosed with it. For many years—probably from the time of my birth—she had had such illnesses as arthritis,

pleurisy, Raynaud's, syndrome and severe headaches, but nobody had put all that together. It was 21 years later, in 1970, that her illness was diagnosed when it began to affect her heart—I suppose that it had to be diagnosed.
Ironically, in 1978, my husband Alan also developed lupus. We sometimes hear of siblings or a mother and daughter who have it, because there is an hereditary tendency to the disease, but it is unusual to have such an illness on both sides of a family. Alan was seriously ill with cerebral and kidney complications and I pay tribute to Dr. George Cochrane and Dr. Christian Murray-Leslie, who treated him. It is essential that people with such a chronic and severe illness have a good relationship with consultants.
I do not want my speech to be all doom and gloom and it is important to recognise that, at one time, only the severe cases were found. Nowadays, doctors find more cases because, thankfully, they are looking for them. Tonight, I want to ensure that even more people are assessed and, if they have lupus, diagnosed correctly.
For those with severe illness, steroids and immuno-suppressants are often used. Those who have milder lupus can be treated with aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Nowadays, more cases, including mild ones, are being diagnosed and a lot of people are treated, recover from the illness and go on to live a full life, so there is good hope for them. However, we must also acknowledge that lupus can kill. It is a severe illness, which is a reason why diagnoses must take place.
Besides my family involvement, I have attended constituency functions in aid of lupus and have been involved in helping to set up the all-party lupus group, so I have become even more aware of how lonely a condition it is. Some sufferers who have come to coffee mornings in aid of lupus have told me, "I have never met anyone else with it." They perhaps do not know about Lupus UK, nor do they know how to get information, so it is critical that that knowledge is conveyed to the general public.
It is also important that knowledge of lupus is conveyed to general practitioners and consultants throughout the medical profession Lupus is a great mimic of other conditions, which is a reason why it is not always recognised, so I pay tribute to Lupus UK for recently publishing a guide for nurses. Last November, at the reception we held here at the House of Commons, it launched a guide for GPs.
I urge the Government to ensure that there is sufficient training of doctors in many of the rheumatic conditions, because lupus is often treated by rheumatologists. The Government must also ensure that awareness of lupus is raised and that there are enough specialists to concentrate on the disease. Sufficient resources must go towards research to continue to develop better treatments and to increase knowledge of this and other auto-immune diseases.
I pay tribute to Dr. Graham Hughes, whose name has been given to the associated condition of anti-phospholipid syndrome, or Hughes syndrome. Across the river is St. Thomas's, which has a famous lupus clinic and is also a centre of excellence. Doctors throughout the country refer patients to that world-renowned clinic, and I understand that it currently treats some 2,500 people with lupus.
I think that the clinic will be pleased about the Government's bed review. There have been difficulties in the past, but I believe that a couple of beds are now reserved for lupus patients. That means that the clinic can be sure of admitting people from regions throughout the country. We would not want people to think they were going into hospital when, in fact, then were no beds for them. It seems that there has been some improvement, but I hope that the Government and the health authority involved will keep the position under review.
Another issue that I urge the Government to keep under review is charging for prescriptions in relation to chronic diseases such as lupus. I know that if the glands no longer produce cortisone because of steroid treatment, a test can show that and prescription charges can cease; but because lupus affects various parts of the body, many different drugs are often needed at any one time. Dressings may also be needed if there are skin lesions. As a consultant once said to me, people should not have to pay to be ill.
I thank members of all parties for the support that they have given to the formation of the all-party group that we set up last year. There seem to be all-party groups for everything, but we felt that there was a real need to ensure that lupus was more readily known about, and I think that the all-party group will bring that about.
We decided at an early stage to conduct a survey of Members to establish how much they knew about lupus. I think that they may be more aware of the condition than people outside. I am pleased to say that 23 per cent. of Members, including interested peers, replied, which is quite a good response here. It was probably better than normal because we asked only four questions. Perhaps there is a message there for anyone who surveys Members of Parliament: if the questions are kept to a minimum, we are more likely to fill at the forms. The responses were interesting. Of the 153 who replied, 128 had heard of lupus, 51 were aware of constituents with the disease, five had family members affected by it, and 24 had friends who suffered from it.
I hope that the debate will add to the knowledge and awareness of this chronic, debilitating condition, which can devastate families.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on obtaining the debate and selecting this subject. It gives me an opportunity to say something about the Government's position in regard to treatment of lupus.
I am aware of the valuable work that my hon. Friend does in the all-party group that was formed in November 2000. I now know—which I did not before tonight—of her personal family experiences, of which she spoke movingly.
I, too, want to put on record a recognition of the contribution made by the voluntary sector in supporting people with lupus. The work of Lupus UK and its regional network is important. I hope that this year's lupus awareness week will build on the success of last year's event and succeed in its aim of raising public awareness of this distressing condition.
I was surprised to hear the results of the survey—one of the few surveys not sunk by a message from the Whips Office saying that we do not normally respond to surveys.

I would not have adjudged awareness to be so high. I must admit that, before I was in my present post, my personal knowledge and constituency experience of lupus would have been nil. The work of the all-party group is important and supports that of the outside groups. I also want to mention the valuable work being carried out by the lupus research unit at St. Thomas's hospital.
Lupus can occur at any age, and in either sex, although it is nine times more frequent among adult females than among adult males. The symptoms of the disease, though, are the same in men and women. Among children, lupus occurs three times more commonly in females than in males. Nine out of 10 patients with lupus are female. It is usually triggered between the ages of 15 and 50. The best estimate is that there are about 50,000 people with lupus in the UK, as my hon. Friend said.
Lupus is a chronic debilitating disorder of the immune system which is incurable and painful. Symptoms can range through the whole medical textbook, but certain symptoms predominate, such as joint pains and swelling, fever and skin rashes.
Lupus is one of the many diseases whose cause is not known. There is probably a genetic predisposition, although episodes can be triggered by environmental agents—for example, infections. Despite years of research, no virus or infectious cause can be identified; nor is there evidence of an environmental cause. Whatever the trigger, the basic problem is an alteration in the immune system. The normal immune system makes antibodies directed against the patient's own body, and this causes tissue damage.
Diagnosis of the disease is difficult because, as my hon. Friend said, many lupus symptoms mimic other illnesses, such as rheumatoid arthritis. There is no single laboratory test that can determine whether a person has lupus. Normally, diagnosis is made by a careful review of a person's entire medical history, together with an analysis of results obtained from laboratory tests and some specialised tests related to immune status. As my hon. Friend rightly said, that does not mean that nothing can be done to help patients with lupus. In the majority of patients, it can be controlled. Treatment aims to suppress the overactive immune system and diminish inflammation.
Treatment may initially be aggressive, perhaps involving the use of steroids, but often milder drugs, such as antimalarials, can be used later. With time, the aim is to treat the disease and use drugs that produce the fewest side effects. Patients may experience a fluctuating course of lupus, but most remain quite well and live at home rather than going into hospital.
I have already mentioned that lupus has no cure at present, that its cause is not fully understood and that diagnosis is often very difficult. That is why it is important to improve our understanding of how to treat and manage it by research. I am pleased to say that the Government, through our support for the Medical Research Council and other research streams, are helping in the drive to understand the causes.
In England, the main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council, which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. We keep our priorities for research under review. In the NHS, priorities are identified through widespread consultation with


those using, delivering and managing services, taking into account the burden of disease, potential benefits and Government objectives, as well as the responsibilities and work of other funders.
It has long been a principle that Governments do not prescribe to research councils how they should distribute resources. That is best decided by research and research users. The Medical Research Council takes all those factors into account.
The current edition of the national research register—issue 1, 2001—shows that there are 73 on-going projects, with another 95 recently completed, considering various aspects of lupus. The NHS helps all the projects by paying the hospital support costs of the units involved.
My hon. Friend mentioned the lupus research unit at St. Thomas's hospital. It is open to lupus patients from all corners of the United Kingdom, and runs special clinics each weekday, with dedicated staff who are trained in all aspects of lupus and related diseases. In addition to medical clinics, the unit has nurse-led clinics and make-up clinics. It provides patient advice services, including weekly lupus pregnancy counselling clinics, information booklets, a CD-ROM, and a hotline telephone service for patients and doctors. The unit now has the largest number of lupus patients on register in the world.
The unit is fully committed to treating this condition. Led by Dr. Graham Hughes, it undertakes research, supported by the St. Thomas's lupus trust. This research is world renowned and has already made major contributions to the understanding and treatment of this devastating illness. Last year, at the annual scientific meeting of the American college of rheumatology, the lupus unit was awarded first prize for a collaborative study with a unit in Milan. The research unit is clearly doing vital work in increasing our understanding of this complex illness. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health attended the launch of the Hughes syndrome foundation in February of this year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton mentioned a couple of specific issues. She spoke about the training of doctors and the provision of consultants. My understanding is that training and awareness of lupus should be part of the core training of doctors which is reviewed regularly with the royal medical colleges and the medical schools and universities. There is no evidence of a shortage of consultants in this area. If she has concerns that she wishes to write to me about, I shall be happy to look into the matter further, but that is my understanding of the position.
Entitlement to help with prescription charges is based on the principle that those who can afford to contribute should do so while those who are likely to have difficulty in paying should be protected. For example, children under 16 and people aged 60 or over are entitled to free NHS prescriptions. As my hon. Friend recognised, people suffering from certain medical conditions are also exempt from prescription charges.
NHS charges and all other aspects of Government spending were reviewed in 1998 as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. Following that review, the Government made the commitment that all current prescription charge exemptions would be protected

for the rest of the Parliament and that existing charges would rise by no more than the rate of inflation over the following three years.
The list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemption was introduced in 1968 after being agreed with the medical profession. The list has been reviewed on a number of occasions, but no clear-cut case for extending it has since emerged or attracted consensus.
When the medical exemptions were introduced, only 42 per cent. of all NHS prescriptions were dispensed free of charge. Now the figure is more than 85 per cent. As a result, many people with medical conditions not on the exempt list already get free prescriptions on other grounds.
We do sympathise with people who require regular or extensive medication, such as those with lupus, but we have no plans to extend the list of medical conditions that confer exemption from prescription charges. People who have to pay prescription charges can seek help under the NHS low-income scheme or through the purchase of a prescription prepayment certificate that offers considerable savings to those who need regular medication.
One of the aspects of lupus is the pain involved. Pain is a major problem and a common consequence of ill health; indeed, it is a major cause of ill health. It is important that good quality pain management be provided to patients to improve their health care and quality of life. We are committed to providing equity of access to health care and to reducing variations in the availability of services. Patients who suffer pain should have access to services that provide management programmes of proven effectiveness. In reviewing local provision, account should be taken of the needs of adults and children and should include patients with acute pain resulting from sudden illness or accident, as well as post-operative and chronic pain, including lupus.
The clinical standards advisory group report has shown that many NHS trusts have developed excellent services, but we recognise that, in some places, more needs to be done to drive up standards. We expect the NHS to take full account of that report when reviewing local provision to meet the needs of both adults and children.
Lupus can, as I said, be managed by drug regimes and also by careful monitoring and a flexible treatment programme. Patients can learn to manage their condition through information, by pursuing daily routines and by resting regularly, thus reducing stress and pain. We know from research that self-management schemes for people with chronic long-term medical conditions can have beneficial effects, including improved health status and fewer hospital admissions. The "Saving Lives—Our Healthier Nation" White Paper signalled our intention, reaffirmed in the NHS plan, to introduce a programme to help such people to manage their own health better, with specialised support from health care professionals and other agencies.
A specialist taskforce, chaired by the chief medical officer, has been examining in detail how an expert patients programme might be designed and embedded within mainstream NHS activity. The taskforce has examined a wide range of issues, including the role of patients as experts in managing their chronic disease,


the relationship between self-management programmes and the support required from the NHS, quality assurance and accreditation, and issues of best practice. Now that the expert patients group has examined many diseases, the challenge will be to apply the lessons learned in the management of lupus. A first draft of an expert patients report has been produced, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has recently announced his intention that the final report will be published in the summer of 2001.
I understand that a drug called Aslera has recently been developed in the United States as a potential treatment for lupus. It is the first new drug to be developed for use in lupus treatment for about 40 years. However, it is at an early stage of development, with further trial evidence being required on both long-term clinical and cost effectiveness. I understand also that it may be submitted for European licensing in the next two years. It is envisaged that, once licensed, it would be recommended as treatment for severe cases of lupus and prescribed alongside existing drug therapy.
My right hon. friend the Secretary of State recently announced that we shall develop a national service framework for long-term conditions. We intend that that framework will be used to produce specific standards for treating long-term neurological conditions. It will also provide generic standards for people with long-term chronic conditions such as lupus. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton will agree that that is a positive step forward.
I hope that my hon. Friend will also agree that the Government are sympathetic to the needs of patients with lupus. We have supported research into the causes of the disease through the Medical Research Council, and we hope that the standards produced by the national service framework and the work on the development of an expert patient programme will help to improve services for people with lupus. Finally, as I said, I hope that lupus awareness week will prove to be a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve midnight.